I think people are being a bit over-the-top on what lawyers are expected to know. The motion in limine answer was obviously embarrassing. But the rest were advanced civil procedure or evidence questions you may not even have learned in law school, or may have only encountered while cramming for the bar exam. Lawyers, especially with his age and experience don’t know everything off the top of their head, nor should they. I’ve clerked for a state district court judge for a couple years after law school, and I didn’t know the answer to the abstention rules and didn’t remember what Daubert was off the top, because we practice under state law and state rules of procedure (obviously with SCOTUS decisions sometimes taking precedent).
However, I’m not putting myself forward for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge! Far more concerning to me is the fact that he’s never tried a case, never taken a deposition, and never even argued a motion!