Kennedy stumps Biden nominee with basic questions about the Constitution

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems to me the judicial nominee ought to be able to at least provide a high level understanding to all parts of the Constitution.

Sen. Kennedy stumps Biden nominee with basic questions about the Constitution

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., grilled four Biden judicial nominees on the Constitution during a confirmation hearing Wednesday, and one could not answer his questions.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Ingomike]

Seems to me the judicial nominee ought to be able to at least provide a high level understanding to all parts of the Constitution.

Sen. Kennedy stumps Biden nominee with basic questions about the Constitution

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., grilled four Biden judicial nominees on the Constitution during a confirmation hearing Wednesday, and one could not answer his questions.

www.foxnews.com

That was probably never taught…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That was probably never taught…

You're probably right. Had to make way for climate and gender theology classes.

 

[foszoe]

Bah.

Sounded like something but after reading it was more like

Bah.

Its like somebody asking me if I know what NOP-001-004-12 rev 12 is. Thats not a basic question and neither were Sen Kennedys

A basic question would be "What's the amendments process according to the Constitution?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bah.

Sounded like something but after reading it was more like

Bah.

Its like somebody asking me if I know what NOP-001-004-12 rev 12 is.

It was clearly a ploy to show how incompetent the nominee was. If you asked me to answer those questions I'd stumble all over the place. But I'm not a judge. I wouldn't expect the nominee to recite the language in the Constitution but it seems to me someone who I'd think would have been a requirement for learning the law would be able to at least be able to give a synopsis of those articles.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Bah.

Sounded like something but after reading it was more like

Bah.

Its like somebody asking me if I know what NOP-001-004-12 rev 12 is. Thats not a basic question and neither were Sen Kennedys

A basic question would be "What's the amendments process according to the Constitution?"

Except at least one question was DIRECTLY relating to judicial decisions. I could give her a pass on the articles. But something that directly relates to how a judge makes rulings? Yeah. Not qualified.

 

[oze]

I'm probably almost as sick of saying this as y'all are of hearing it:
Diversity hire.

 

[NHT3]

I'm probably almost as sick of saying this as y'all are of hearing it:
Diversity hire.

Preach on Brother, I'm not sick of hearing it. Most qualified should always be the primary goal.

 

[manifest destiny]

Sadly, we live in country where a female Supreme Court justice cannot define what a woman is. From the above link:

"Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does," Kennedy instructed Bjelkengren at the beginning of his question time.
"Article V is not coming to mind at the moment," the judge said.

That's a pretty basic question for a judge, I would think. From link:

Next, Kennedy asked if Bjelkengren knew what "purposivism" is, but she was again unable to give an answer. Purposivism, or the purposive approach, is a philosophy of interpreting the law that emphasizes the law's purpose — advocating for judges to enforce the spirit of the law when it contradicts with the text of the law, according to Harvard Law professor John F. Manning, writing in the Columbia Law Review. In contrast, textualists argue that judges must strictly adhere to the law's enacted text, when it is clear.

I admit not having ever heard of purposivism. But I haven't attended law school and passed the bar and already sat on the bench as a judge. Her not knowing anything about this seems to suggest she lacks judicial education. Great, just great. Let's promote her.

 

[xwing]

Of course, her sole criteria for being nominated for elevation was her willingness to ignore the Constitution in order to rubber-stamp everything that fits with Democrat objectives.

 

[DadSmith]

Bah.

Sounded like something but after reading it was more like

Bah.

Its like somebody asking me if I know what NOP-001-004-12 rev 12 is. Thats not a basic question and neither were Sen Kennedys

A basic question would be "What's the amendments process according to the Constitution?"

If you want to be a Supreme Court Justice you should know the constitution. It isn't that lengthy.

 

[manifest destiny]

If you want to be a Supreme Court Justice you should know the constitution. It isn't that lengthy.

But it's written in cursive which is clearly supremacy of some sort.

 

[foszoe]

If you want to be a Supreme Court Justice you should know the constitution. It isn't that lengthy.

This is for the Supreme Court?

 

[manifest destiny]

This is for the Supreme Court?

No. Elevating her to district court, I believe. She's currently on state bench somewhere.

 

[DadSmith]

This is for the Supreme Court?

No I'm saying if this judge or any judge wants to be on the Supreme Court they need to know the constitution. On any federal court they should as well.
SCOTUS is full at the moment.

 

[Tombs]

It's weird how they tell us not to judge people based on the color of their skin or what's between their legs. Yet that's exactly how they select nominees.

 

[foszoe]

No I'm saying if this judge or any judge wants to be on the Supreme Court they need to know the constitution. On any federal court they should as well.
SCOTUS is full at the moment.

I would agree. I expect more from a SCOTUS than lower courts.

I have differing expectations for each level. It's just that article, to me, was click bait compared to the content.

 

[bgcatty]

Diversity hire? Do you really mean idiot hire just like the person who nominated this moron.

 

[Shadow01]

Judges should be well educated and well rounded in the law. I have no issues with conformation hearings that show their lack of knowledge. If you don’t know the law, you can’t adjudicate it