We’ve seen problems with the liberal judges that Joe Biden has nominated to the federal courts. Perhaps the most stunning question-and-answer session was that of Ketanji Brown Jackson when she was asked if she could define what a woman was. She responded no, she wasn’t a biologist. That’s how far over to the radical left we’ve gone now, with Biden nominees. If you can’t define what a woman is, how can you evaluate matters about women’s rights? Yet, she was still voted without much problem to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, who was nominated by Joe Biden and recommended by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, got into some big trouble on a couple of basic questions from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA).
Q: “Judge, tell me what article V of the Constitution does?”
Biden judicial nominee: “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment.”
“How about article II?”
Nominee: “Neither is Article II”
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) January 26, 2023
“Judge, tell me what article V of the Constitution does?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied, “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment.”
“How about article II?” Kennedy tried. “Neither is Article II,” the nominee answered.
Now, most people might not be able to answer those questions at the drop of a hat. But someone trying to be a federal judge should at least have a nodding acquaintance of what the Articles pertain to. This is essentially showing up unprepared for a job interview. How do you rule on Constitutional issues if you don’t know what’s in the Constitution?
Article V of the Constitution pertains to making amendments to the Constitution and Article II pertains to the powers of the Executive Branch, led by the president. Two articles with things that are likely to have issues that would come before the federal courts.
Kennedy also asked her what “purposivism” was — a legal philosophy that says you should emphasize the purpose of the law rather than the text of the law, when there is a conflict between the purpose with the text. Bjelkengren also said she was not familiar with that.
“In my 12 years as an assistant attorney general, in my nine years as a judge, I was not faced with that precise question,” Bjelkengren said. “We are the highest trial court in Washington state, so I’m frequently faced with issues that I’m not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law, I research, and apply the law to the facts presented to me.”
Kennedy did not seem impressed. “Well, you’re going to be faced with it if you’re confirmed, I can assure you of that,” he said.
Now, Kennedy doesn’t just save this questioning for nominees proposed by Democrats, he nailed a candidate proposed by President Donald Trump who had issues answering questions as well.
When a Trump nominee couldn't answer similar questions posed by Sen. Kennedy back in 2017, the nomination was withdrawn https://t.co/TjzUFmsaNx
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) January 26, 2023
That created a furor at the time. That candidate — Matthew Petersen — had the character to ask Trump to withdraw his name.
You would think that given that, the Democrats would have had the sense to prepare the nominee. It says something that they don’t even bother to.
I’m willing to bet this likely won’t get the attention from the liberal media that it deserves. They should withdraw the nominee, but I’m also willing to bet since it’s Joe Biden and the Democrats, you’re not likely to see this nominee withdrawn and Democrats will vote for her anyway. That will tell you everything they think about what’s important for federal judges, and it isn’t their knowledge of the law — it’s who they think will rule their way politically on the courts. That’s the only thing they care about, not whether the person is qualified or has the requisite knowledge for the job.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member