Prez’s judicial picks reflect a racially biased agenda

When President Trump nominates a man who has never tried a case for a seat on the federal bench, it shows he sees absolutely no shame in his game.

Brett Talley, 36, has never even argued a motion in court, which suggests he got his law license for reasons other than practicing law.

Worse yet, the American Bar Association has given Talley a “not qualified” rating.

But apparently, Trump, who was widely considered by members of his own party to be “unqualified” for the presidency, isn’t going to be persuaded by the opinions of an established law group like the ABA. And, wait, there’s more. The president’s man for a lifetime position on the federal bench failed to disclose he’s married to the White House counsel’s chief of staff, as required.

But don’t expect Talley’s shortcomings to derail the nomination.

This is too good of an opportunity for Republicans to miss.

While the public focuses on the president’s latest explosive tweet, Senate Republicans are pushing through Trump’s judicial nominees at a breakneck speed.

In one week, the Senate confirmed four nominees for lifetime positions on circuit courts and one to district court, something that has rarely happened.

“What the Trump administration is doing is putting people in place who later will be appointed to appellate courts and Supreme Court, and he is building a pipeline,” said Juan Thomas, president of the National Bar Association.

“Elections matter. These judicial appointments and nominations have long- term, lifelong implications,” he said.

Although a lot of us are worried about Trump’s impulsive behavior on the global stage, his behavior here at home ought to be enough to start a revolution.

For instance, an analysis by the Associated Press shows Trump, whose campaign was heavily supported by white nationalists, is nominating white men to the nation’s federal courts at an alarming rate.

Of 58 nominations to lifetime positions on appellate and district courts and the Supreme Court through October, the AP found: 53 were white; three were Asian- American; one was Hispanic, and one was AfricanAmerican.

Additionally, 47 of the nominees were men, and only 11 were women.

Thomas said the numbers are disappointing but not surprising.

“Trump and ‘ Beauregard’ Sessions showed no regard for people of color, showed no regard for diversity and have a very conservative right- wing regressive agenda,” Thomas said.

“They are promoting that agenda. Our response is not only to resist and raise objections. We have to prepare for war. We need to get ready for the 2018 and 2020 elections and realize elections have consequences,” he said.

The Congressional Black Caucus, along with several progressive groups, protested Trump’s nomination of Thomas Farr to be a U. S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“It is no exaggeration to say that had the White House deliberately sought to identify an attorney in North Carolina with a more hostile record on African- American voting rights and workers’ rights than Thomas Farr, it could hardly have done so,” the CBC said in a letter cited by Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote.

The National Bar Association has “serious concerns” as it relates to the Department of Justice’s commitment to inclusion and diversity, Thomas said.

“As Congressman [ Cedric] Richmond ( D- Va.) mentioned during his inquiry of Sessions, the NBA submitted recommendations for judicial nominees. Yet 91 percent of the administration’s judicial nominees were white men with only one being AfricanAmerican,” he told me.

The judicial high jinks will affect America’s justice system for generations.

“For those of you who did not vote or sat at home or voted for a third- party candidate, this is the consequence. You have Donald Trump,” Thomas said. There is a silver lining, however. Because of the Trump presidency, no one should ever again have to explain to an apathetic electorate the importance of voting.