Ted Cruz Explodes On "Wildly Unqualified" Biden Nominee Who Can't Even Answer Basic Legal Questions

Summary

The transcript captures a heated Senate hearing discussing the qualifications of various judicial nominees. The speaker criticizes the nominees for their extreme views, lack of constitutional knowledge, and potential bias, highlighting instances of nominees struggling to answer basic questions about the Constitution. The speaker also condemns the rush to confirm these nominees and urges colleagues to uphold the Senate's authority and the judiciary's integrity.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The nominee being questioned could not recall Article Five or Article Two of the Constitution, which are fundamental to understanding the U.S. Constitution.
• 📚 The speaker emphasizes the importance of thorough legal knowledge for judicial nominees, suggesting that a lack of it is disqualifying.
• 🏛 The speaker criticizes the process of confirming judicial nominees, suggesting that it is being rushed and that nominees are not being properly vetted.
• 👎 The speaker labels some nominees as 'extreme' and accuses them of having radical views, implying that they are unfit for the role of a judge.
• 🔍 The speaker highlights the Southern Poverty Law Center's controversial history and its connection to one of the nominees, suggesting a bias in their work.
• 🗣️ The speaker accuses certain nominees of promoting false narratives, such as the claim that police officers kill unarmed black men every day, which is presented as a lie.
• 👩‍⚖️ The speaker questions the integrity of a nominee who changed her story regarding a controversial statement during her nomination hearing.
• 🏳️‍🌈 The speaker argues that some nominees have a history of advocating for racial discrimination, which is antithetical to the role of a judge.
• 🤯 The speaker expresses concern about a nominee who self-identifies as a 'wild-eyed sort of leftist' and is motivated by hatred for conservatives.
• 🚫 The speaker calls for a rejection of unqualified nominees and urges senators to stand up to the White House and defend the institution of the Senate.
• 📖 The speaker discusses the importance of the 'blue slip' process in judicial nominations, arguing that it is crucial for maintaining the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Q & A

What is the main concern expressed by the speaker regarding the judicial nominees?

The speaker is concerned about the qualifications and ideologies of the judicial nominees, describing them as extreme, unqualified, and motivated by radical views or personal biases.

What is the 'independent state legislature theory' mentioned in the script?

The script does not provide a definition of the 'independent state legislature theory.' It is mentioned as a topic the nominee was expected to be familiar with but was not.

What is the role of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as described in the script?

The SPLC is described as an organization with a history of labeling mainstream conservative groups as 'hate groups,' which the speaker criticizes as extreme and problematic.

What incident is mentioned that involved the SPLC's designation of a group as a hate group?

The script refers to an incident in 2012 where a man targeted the Family Research Council, using the SPLC's hate map, resulting in a shooting and attempted murder.

What is the 'purposivism' the speaker asks about in the script?

The script does not provide a definition or explanation of 'purposivism.' It is mentioned as a term the nominee was expected to be familiar with but was not.

What does the speaker claim about the nominees' understanding of the U.S. Constitution?

The speaker claims that some nominees lack basic knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, such as not knowing what Article Two is, which establishes the executive branch.

What is the significance of the 'blue slip' in the context of the script?

The 'blue slip' is a tradition that allows home state senators to have a say in the nomination of federal judges. The speaker argues that getting rid of or weakening the blue slip would undermine the Senate's authority.

What does the speaker suggest about the Democrats' voting behavior regarding judicial nominees?

The speaker suggests that Democrats are voting in favor of all judicial nominees without question, which the speaker views as a lack of standards and a disregard for the qualifications of the nominees.

What does the speaker urge the Democrats to do regarding the judicial nominees?

The speaker urges Democrats to stand up to the White House and not confirm nominees who are unqualified or hold extreme views, suggesting that they should apply a higher standard of scrutiny.

What is the 'nuclear option' mentioned in the script, and what did it lead to?

The 'nuclear option' refers to a Senate rule change made under Harry Reid to end the filibuster for judges, which the speaker predicts led to more conservative Supreme Court Justices being confirmed.

What is the speaker's view on the importance of the Senate's role in the nomination of federal judges?

The speaker believes that the Senate has a crucial role in ensuring that federal judges are qualified and will follow the law, and that this role should not be undermined by partisan politics.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Judicial Nominees' Knowledge and Qualifications Questioned

The speaker expresses concern over the qualifications of several judicial nominees, highlighting instances where nominees were unable to answer basic questions about the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article Five and Article Two. The speaker criticizes the process, suggesting that the nominees are being rushed through without adequate scrutiny, and emphasizes the importance of nominees having a thorough understanding of the law. The speaker also criticizes the nominee Nancy Abuto for her past affiliations and actions, including her role at the Southern Poverty Law Center and controversial statements made by the organization.

05:01

😠 Extreme Views and Misrepresentations in Judicial Nominations

The speaker continues to criticize the judicial nominees, focusing on their extreme views and potential biases. The discussion includes Nusrat Chawla, accused of promoting racial discrimination and using the law as a tool for social justice, and Dale Ho, who self-identifies as a 'wild-eyed sort of leftist' with a professed hatred for conservatives. The speaker argues that such nominees are unqualified and biased, and questions the motives behind their nominations, suggesting a disregard for the integrity of the judiciary.

10:03

📚 The Importance of Constitutional Knowledge for Federal Judges

The speaker recounts an incident where a nominee, Charell Becklen, was unable to identify Article Five and Article Two of the Constitution during her nomination process, suggesting a severe lack of qualifications for a federal district judge position. The speaker emphasizes that knowledge of the Constitution is fundamental for any law student, let alone a federal judge, and criticizes the Democratic members of the committee for supporting such nominees without question. The speaker calls for a return to higher standards in the nomination process.

15:04

🏛️ The Senate's Role and the Blue Slip Process in Judicial Nominations

The speaker discusses the importance of the Senate's role in the judicial nomination process, particularly the blue slip tradition, which allows home state senators to have a say in the selection of federal judges. The speaker warns that eliminating or weakening the blue slip process would undermine the Senate's authority and the ability of senators to represent their states' interests. The speaker also reflects on past decisions that have weakened the Senate, such as the nuclear option, and predicts further erosion of the institution if the current trend continues.

Keywords

💡Article Five

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution pertains to the amendment process. In the script, it is mentioned when a nominee is unable to recall its content during questioning, highlighting a perceived lack of constitutional knowledge which is critical for a judicial nominee.

💡Article Two

Article Two establishes the executive branch and the office of the President. The script points out that not knowing what Article Two is, reflects a significant deficiency in legal knowledge, especially for a judicial nominee, as it is a fundamental part of the Constitution.

💡Purposivism

Purposivism is a legal philosophy that interprets laws based on the purpose they were intended to serve. The script mentions it as a term unfamiliar to the nominee, suggesting a gap in their legal expertise or experience with certain legal theories.

💡Independent State Legislature Theory

This is a legal doctrine that discusses the power of state legislatures in U.S. federal elections. The nominee's unfamiliarity with it in the script underscores the scrutiny nominees face regarding their knowledge of specific legal concepts.

💡Judicial Nominees

Judicial nominees are individuals selected for judgeships, subject to Senate confirmation. The script criticizes the process and certain nominees, implying a concern over the qualifications and ideologies of those being appointed to the judiciary.

💡Extreme Nominees

The term 'extreme nominees' in the script refers to candidates perceived as having radical views or lacking centrist positions, suggesting a concern about the ideological balance of the judiciary.

💡Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

The SPLC is mentioned as an organization with a controversial history of labeling groups as 'hate groups'. In the script, it is associated with one of the nominees, indicating concerns about the nominee's affiliations and potential biases.

💡Racial Discrimination

The script discusses racial discrimination as a contentious issue, particularly in the context of a nominee's writings and views. It is highlighted as a fundamental principle that should be universally condemned by judicial nominees.

💡Blue Slip

The 'blue slip' is a tradition in the Senate Judiciary Committee where home state senators can approve or disapprove judicial nominees. The script argues that disregarding this tradition undermines the Senate's authority in the nomination process.

💡Nuclear Option

The 'nuclear option' refers to a procedural change in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for certain nominations. The script warns of the consequences of such a move, suggesting it leads to more ideologically extreme judges being appointed.

💡Character and Temperament

The script emphasizes the importance of a judge's character and temperament, suggesting that some nominees lack the appropriate qualities for a judicial role, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

Highlights

Judge's unfamiliarity with Article Five and Article Two of the Constitution during questioning.

Discussion on the role of the highest trial court in Washington state and the approach to unfamiliar legal issues.

Committee's consideration of 29 judicial nominees in a single morning, raising concerns about the quality and qualifications of the nominees.

Critique of the nominee Nancy Abuto's background and association with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Concerns about the nominee Nusrat Chawri's views on racial discrimination and the use of law as a tool for social justice.

Controversy over a panel statement suggesting police officers kill unarmed black men every day, and the nominee's response to it.

The nominee Kenya Kato's inability to answer whether racial discrimination is wrong, linked to her law school writings.

Dale Ho's self-description as a 'wild-eyed sort of leftist' and his admission of being motivated by hatred for conservatives.

The nominee Charell Becklen's lack of knowledge about basic constitutional articles during her nomination process.

Senator's call for Democrats to stand up to the White House and not rubber stamp unqualified judicial nominees.

Concerns about the impact of the 'blue slip' process on the selection of federal judges and the potential weakening of senatorial prerogatives.

Historical context provided about the 'nuclear option' and its consequences for the Senate and judicial appointments.

Senator's plea for bipartisan cooperation in the selection of judicial nominees to maintain the integrity of the judiciary.

Emphasis on the responsibility of the committee to ensure that Article Three judges have the right temperament and character.

The importance of nominees' practical experience and knowledge in meeting the standards required for federal judge positions.

Criticism of the Democratic majority's approach to moving forward with extreme judicial nominees without sufficient vetting.

Transcripts

judge on the far

end uh tell tell me what article five of

The Constitution

does Article Five is not coming to mind

at the moment okay how about article

two neither is article

two

okay do you know what purposivism

is um in my 12 years as an Assistant

Attorney General and my nine years

serving as a judge I was not faced with

that precise question um we are the

highest trial court in Washington state

so I'm frequently faced with um issues

that I'm not familiar with and I

thoroughly review the law our research

and apply the law to the facts presented

to me well you're going to be faced with

it as a if you're confirmed I can assure

you of that can you tell me what the

independent state legislature theory

is just I'm just asking you not your

opinion of what is it before The Supreme

Court

now in my 12 years as a Washington state

Assistant Attorney General and right the

wa that particular um Doctrine was not

presented to me I'm out of time thanks

Mr chairman Mr chairman this committee

is in the process of considering 29

judicial nominees in a single morning

now it's not uncommon when a new

Congress comes in to take up nominees

that didn't pass in the previous

Congress but typically there's a reason

that nominees don't pass in the previous

Congress which is they are often the

most extreme and most problematic

nominees in this instance that is

emphatically the

case and many of these

nominees are quite literally the most

extreme judicial nominees I've seen in

10 years on the

Senate part of the reason the Democrat

majority is trying to move 29 nominees

in one

morning is to flood the Zone with so

many bad

nominees that nobody can focus on how

utterly unqualified these nominees are

to be

judges the nominee being considered

right now Nancy abuto senator Le did a

good job of walking through her extreme

record she was the deputy legal director

at the Southern Poverty Law Center an

organization that has a long and

shameful

history of labeling mainstream

conservative groups as quote hate

groups and the

splc's history is so egregious that it

prompted a violent hate

crime in 2010 the splc designated the

family research Council as a hate group

and two years later a man targeted the

the family research Council using the

splc's hate map and came in and shot and

critically wounded the council's

business manager and attempted to murder

several council members before being

heroically

stopped by the building security

guard the splc in

2019 authored an

article that

accused Republicans including three

members of this Committee of holding

quote open white supremacist

views Mr chairman that's

ridiculous you know that's ridiculous

political rhetoric is one thing but when

you have extreme

leftists falsely

claiming white supremacy

it illustrates that you are dealing with

radicals and partisan

zealots Nancy aboto isn't the only

nominee that this committee is trying to

move

forward this committee also has before

it Nusrat

chowri who is another extreme

Zealot Miss

chalry believes that America is through

and through an evil and racist place and

she's not been shy about explaining that

she has stated that quote the structure

of racial discrimination in America

quote is so deep so

pernicious that you have to quote use

the law as a tool of social

justice does anyone think she's going to

stop quote using the law as a tool of

social justice if she ascends to the

bench

the most concerning thing Miss chowri

said is she participated in the panel at

my alma mat Princeton

University the panel was entitled how

activism informs

policy and one of the panelists there

suggested that police officers kill

unarmed black men every

day now there's a technical term for

that statement that's called a lie it's

not even kind of sort of right it is

wildly totally

false during her nomination

hearing she was asked about a tweet that

came from that event which said that she

had agreed with the statement that

police officers kill unarmed black men

every single

day at first she claimed she couldn't

remember making the statement then later

in the same hearing she claimed she did

make the statement but she did so quote

as an advocate she said so three

separate times well I just you know did

it as an advocate now most of the

members of this Committee of practice

law the last I checked as an advocate

you have an obligation not to

lie and that is a Brazen lie that is

dangerous now subsequently she sent a

follow-up letter after her hearing

saying oh never mind I didn't say it the

thing that she had Justified as oh I

said it as an advocate afterward she

sent a letter and said no actually I

didn't say it Republicans on this

committee asked for a follow-up hearing

to to ask about her miraculous new

memory post hearing that she didn't say

such a harmful thing to police officers

across the country

sadly the chairman wouldn't give

us a new hearing another of of the

judges being considered today Kenya

Kenley ke

Kato at her hearing I asked her a very

simple

question is racial discrimination

wrong she was utterly unable to answer

it today's Democrat Party Embraces

racial

discrimination believes that

discriminating based on race the reason

Mr chairman and you're you you are

smirking but the reason she she couldn't

answer it is because in law school she

had written an article at advocating

racial

discrimination against

asian-americans now miss KO is

Asian-American and she said and I'm

paraphrasing here I don't have the

article in front of me but she

essentially said that asian-americans

who didn't support explicit racial

discrimination against ra Asian

Americans weren't sufficiently woke they

weren't sufficiently

enlightened now I think that's a noxious

position but that's of course why she

couldn't answer that racial disc

discrimination was wrong because she is

an advocate for racial

discrimination another one of the

nominees being considered this

morning is Dale

ho Dale ho is a self-described quote

Wildey sort of leftist now let me be

clear that's not my

terminology that's how he describes

himself he says I am a quote wild-eyed

sort of leftist he

wrote about how

he's

motivated each day by his hate for

conservatives that's the word he used

hate now I want you to pause for a

second and imagine I'm going to ask the

Democrat members of this committee to do

something which is

imagine you're in somebody else's shoes

engage in

empathy there are actually conservatives

in the state of New York now the

Democrat Governor of New York said to

Republicans in New York you're not New

Yorkers get the hell out go to Florida

where you

belong there's an arrogance to telling

your voters that but it's one thing when

you're an elected official if you want

to demonstrate that kind of arrogance

but one would think that a federal judge

has a different obligation so I would

ask the members of this committee

imagine for a second you were a

republican imagine for a second you were

a conservative who happened to live in

New York

and you look up in New York City on the

federal bench and you see a judge who's

described himself as a wild-eyed sort of

leftist his own words who is motivated

every day who gets up every day and what

gets him going is his hatred for

you you know this is kind of fellow that

should have worked at the Southern

Poverty Law Center that's the kind of

radicals who this Administration is

nominating and

yet that is not the kind of person that

should be a federal judge and I'm going

to talk

about one

final

nominee that isn't before us today but

that will be

soon which is

charell

becklen now the members of this

committee are aware of just how wildly

unqualified this nominee was she's been

nominated to be a federal district judge

and our colleague Senator Kennedy whose

cross-examinations on this committee

have now become

legendary he asked

her what article 5 of The Constitution

was and she responded saying well she

couldn't remember she wasn't familiar

with

that he then asked

her what article two of the Constitution

was and she said well that's not coming

to mind

either it was a

stunning

display of her lack of qualifications to

be a federal

judge now to be clear asking someone

what article two of the Constitution

is is not some obscure legal

gotcha there are questions you can ask

about bizarre you know hidden legal

theories that would be a gotcha that

wouldn't be

fair not knowing what article two of the

Constitution is which is what

establishes the president and the

executive

branch any first year law student who

didn't know what article two of the

Constitution was would flunk

conlaw and I will say chairman Durban

subsequently said publicly she was

likely to get

confirmed and he went on to say that he

thought there were members of this

committee who couldn't answer the

question Senator Kennedy asked as well I

hope and pray that's not the case I'm

going to ask I'm confident that on the

Republican side of the aisle the members

of this committee know what Article 2 is

are there any members of this committee

who care to volunteer on the Democrat

side of the aisle that you don't know

what article two

is if you

didn't you or I or anyone who didn't

know what article two was would not be

qualified to serve on this

committee and I will say

I want to encourage the Democrats on the

committee to follow chairman durban's

lead chairman

Durban during the Trump Administration

explained on a nominee he

said he invoked what he called The

Senator John Kennedy

test and chairman Durban said quote I

think it's a legitimate test to be

applied to all those who want to be

trial judges and I hope others on both

sides of the table will join me in

saying it's it's not enough to Aspire

you have to bring to this aspiration

some practical experience and knowledge

that suggests you can meet the standard

required and I just want to close by

this which is urging my

colleagues to be willing to stand up to

the White

House I'm confident

that many if not most of you actually

care about having a qualified

Judiciary one of the things I cannot

understand over the last two

years is every Democrat member of this

committee has voted for every single

Biden judicial nominee 100% without

failing and I will say on the senate

floor every Democrat has voted for every

Biden judicial nominee not a single

Democrat in the United States Senate has

mustered the courage to vote no on a

single nominee and to be clear it wasn't

that long

ago we had a Republican president and a

republican majority in this body and

there were many of

us who said on particular nominees this

is not a good nominee we're not going to

support this nominee in fact the John

Kennedy test that Senate that chairman

Durban referred to came from a trump

nominee who John Kennedy eviscerated at

a

hearing in a video that I still likened

to watching a car wreck in slow motion

it was painful but what happened when it

became clear that this individual was

not qualified for the position for which

he had been nominated the White House

withdrew the nomination and it did so

after a number of us made clear we're

not going to support putting an

unqualified person on the bench pull the

nomination

back so I would ask members of this

committee is there anyone if the white

house nominates a ham

sandwich are Democrats prepared to

rubber stamp judge ham

sandwich and this also connects to the

discussion on the blue

slip look I understand politics

sometimes we put on team colors and

you're a Democrat or Republican and you

vote with your party and that for a

number of issues is

fine but do any Democrat members of this

committee actually care about defending

the institution of the

Senate and your Authority as a senator

to represent your

state because the blue slip

fundamentally it's not even a partisan

issue it is

fundamentally about article one versus

article two now Biden's judicial

nominees have no idea what I just

said but the blue slip is all about are

Judges going to be picked solely by the

president or by the home state senators

and let's be clear this is not just when

the opposing party is in the White House

When Donald Trump was

President there were some I think 22

judicial vacancies on the district court

in

Texas when Trump was President Senator

John Corin and I we have a bipartisan

Federal Judicial evaluation committee

that puts out a notice a call for

application that interviews that selects

very qualified nominees recommends them

to us I can tell you during the Trump

presidency Senator cordon and I we we

met together we agreed and for each

vacancy we forwarded to the Trump White

House one

name one name and for every single one

the Trump White House nominated the one

name we

forwarded if the Democrats in this

committee assed to the partisans who are

saying get rid of the blue

slip temporarily you'll do some harm to

Republicans on on this committee by

ramming through some terrible

judges but what you're really doing is

giving away away your prerogative EV

every

Senator who's not even looking up right

now is giving away your ability I

suspect Senator Booker cares about who's

a judge in New

Jersey but if the blue slip go goes away

or is weakened by the Democrat chairman

you know what Senator Booker is not

going to have much of a say in who a

judge in New Jersey is and that's going

to be true with a Democrat president or

a Republican

president now Senator Booker and I may

not agree on who the best candidate for

a judge is but I do think if you care

about being a

senator putting partisan politics above

the prerogatives above protecting this

institution I still remember the day the

Senate under Harry Reid Ed the nuclear

option to end the filibuster for

judges and I remember standing on the

senate floor next to Senator

kachar and I turned to Senator kachar on

that day and I said y'all are going to

regret this you're going to regret this

you're going to regret weakening the

institution of the Senate and I said the

result of this you are going to get more

Supreme Court Justices like justice

Scalia and Justice Thomas now I said I'm

happy with that

outcome but you're not and I will say if

you look at the justices that came

through that prediction proved exactly

right Democrats were willing like

Lemmings to jump off the

cliff because partisan politics were

that high and so my

call and sadly I say this call with abs

absolute certainty it will be

unheeded is for one Democrat

Senator to muster the gumption to say

for one of these radical nominees

no we're not going to vote to confirm a

ham sandwich no we're not going to con

vote to confirm a judge who tells people

he's motivated by hate we're not going

to vote to confirm a judge who doesn't

even know what article two of the

Constitution

is we have a

responsibility on this committee to

ensure that article three

judges have the right temperament the

right character and will follow the law

these judges that are nominated are not

going to do that and the only thing that

will stop it will be if any Democrat

senators are willing to insist on the

barest monom of standards

and to do our

jobs and I hope and pray we do that