Ted Cruz Explodes On "Wildly Unqualified" Biden Nominee Who Can't Even Answer Basic Legal Questions
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🤔 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.
😠 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.
📚 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.
🏛️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Article Five
💡Article Two
💡Purposivism
💡Independent State Legislature Theory
💡Judicial Nominees
💡Extreme Nominees
💡Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
💡Racial Discrimination
💡Blue Slip
💡Nuclear Option
💡Character and Temperament
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
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)