Let me introduce you to Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), a national treasure renowned for his dry sense of humor and keen wit. He has demonstrated these abilities throughout his time in the Senate, whether it be by opposing unfit Biden nominees or having perceptive conversations with media.
Kennedy demonstrated his keen sense of humor on Wednesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting when he questioned federal magistrate judge Robin M. Meriweather of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Joe Biden has nominated Meriweather to serve as a judge on the Court of Federal Claims.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
Throughout his interrogation, Kennedy deftly brought Meriweather’s total lack of qualifications to light. He began by making her admit that, in spite of multiple attempts, she had never brought a case before the Court of Federal Claims.
Meriweather’s circumstances deteriorated. Answering two basic questions that any law student should be able to answer was difficult for her. The definition of a contract of cohesion was the subject of the second question, while the first focused on the requirements for awarding a new trial. Kennedy had encouraged Meriweather to think of more grounds for granting a new trial, but he was stumped by the second question and could only think of one.
The whole six-minute interrogation was completely out of character.
WATCH:
Transcript:
Kennedy: In the Court of Federal Claims, how many motions have you argued?
Meriweather: I have appeared in multiple courts to argue hundreds of motions involving intricate civil claims. Among those courts is not the Court of Federal Claims.
Kennedy: Alright, so the response is 0?
Meriweather: Senator, you’re right.
Kennedy: Alright, so tell me how many cases you have tried in the Federal Claims Court.
Meriweather: Although they involve similarly complex matters under civil laws, none of my cases have been in the court of federal claims. Instead, they have all been resolved on motions. I have tried a civil case in the District Court for the District of Columbia, Meriweather said.
Kennedy: So the answer is zero?
Meriweather: That is correct, Senator.
Kennedy: Explain to me why the Court of Federal Claims would grant a new trial.
Meriweather: All of the trials in the Court of Federal Claims are bench trials and the Court of Federal Claims, although it is not bound by the federal rules of civil procedure, its rules mirror those rules when applicable. So it’s my understanding that the same rules that would apply in the district court are also applied in that context, but if I were presented with a motion for a new trial, should I be confirmed as a judge on the Court of Federal Claims I would, of course, consult the rules of court, of the Court of Federal Claims.
Kennedy: So what justifies a new trial being granted?
Meriweather: From what I understand, you would have to abide by the relevant rules in a reopening trial.
Kennedy: That is true, but which ones are they? What grounds exist? You claimed that the guidelines are the same for both the Federal District Court and the Court of Federal Claims. I may be mistaken, but could you please clarify what the conditions are for requesting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
Meriweather: Senator, despite my vast civil experience and familiarity with both the federal rules of civil procedure and the Court of Federal Claims, I have not previously had the occasion to consider that issue. But should I be confirmed, if that question were put to me, I would once more review the guidelines and adhere to the established practice.
Kennedy: Okay, just to be sure, judge, I understand what you’ve said. As we sit here today, can you name a single justification for granting a new trial in either a federal district court or the Court of Federal Claims?Kennedy enquired once more.
Merriweather: Undoubtedly, a litigant would seek a new trial if the law was applied incorrectly or egregiously.
Kennedy: What more is there? About six or seven of them are present. Do you know of any other?
Merriweather: Though I have presided over bench trials and jury trials, I have not been presented with a motion to have a new trial because trials in the civil context are so rare.
Kennedy: Alright, so tell me about a contract of adhesion.
Merriweather: Senator, I understand the idea of contracts of adhesion and contract law.
Kennedy: That is what the Federal Court of Federal Claims does, so you will see a lot of it. What is an adhesion contract?
Merriweather: Senator, a lot of procurement cases are handled by the Court of Federal Claims; these cases usually depend on interpretations.
Kennedy: I’m going to run out of time, but yes, ma’am. What is an adhesion contract? Tell me if you don’t know.
Merriweather: Senator, I have a great deal of civil experience, having handled dozens of cases involving contracts. However, I have never addressed the question of what a contract of adhesion is. If one were to be presented to me, I would certainly consider it.
Kennedy: You’ll definitely check it out.
A contract of adhesion, according to Cornell Law School, is created when one party has a substantial advantage over the other in the bargaining process, making it impossible for the weaker party to negotiate the terms of the agreement. These kinds of contracts are commonly found in mortgages, leases, insurance, property deeds, car purchases, and other consumer credit transactions.
If the repercussions weren’t severe, the federal court candidates that Biden has nominated would be hilarious. Recall that these leftist ignoramuses will live their entire lives enacting laws from the bench, completely disguising the Constitution in the process.
I miss the old America. The Constitutional Law’s need to be Up Held or America will be No more. A vote for a demorat is a End to America.