Thu Jan 26, 2023, 04:31 PM

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

Source: NBC News

A judicial nominee of President Joe Biden was apparently stumped by Sen. John Kennedy's basic questions about the Constitution during her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday.

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, who was nominated to be the U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, couldn't answer when Kennedy, R-La., pressed her about articles of the nation's founding document.

“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning.

“Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna67703

80 replies, 7501 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

80 replies	Author	Time	Post
Sen. Kennedy stumps Biden judicial nominee with basic questions about Constitution (Original post)	Jose Garcia	Jan 26	OP
Refresh my memory, in your own words, Senator Kennedy	Freethinker65	Jan 26	#1
She should have known. There's no excuse for a federal judicial nominee	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#2
Yup. Absolutely. Who the hell vetted her?	hlthe2b	Jan 26	#13
Yah	Effete Snob	Jan 26	#18
She is not nominated for a Supreme Court seat.	Freethinker65	Jan 26	#26
And you somehow think a FEDERAL judge should not know the constitution? Really?	hlthe2b	Jan 26	#27
All federal judges should be familiar with these issues, not just Supreme Court nominees.	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#31
Agree. In order to make rulings on a case, Judges review the law and constitution as it pertains.	Freethinker65	Jan 26	#42
They decided them by careful review of applicable case law etc. nt	Phoenix61	Jan 27	#49
A sitting federal judge shouldn't have to look up what is covered	Ocelot II	Jan 27	#52
I agree. She should not have been nominated. nt	Trueblue Texan	Jan 27	#58
I would love one of the news media to ask Kennedy about a specific article of the Constitution, and	JohnSJ	Jan 26	#3
Don't let Kennedy's Foghorn Leghorn demeanor fool you.	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#5
He knew the answers because he had the opportunity	Phoenix61	Jan 27	#48
The general topics of the articles of the Constitution isn't snap knowledge	Ocelot II	Jan 27	#50
So you have instant recall of everything you learned	Phoenix61	Jan 27	#51
No, but I didn't have to look up the topics covered by articles II and V	Ocelot II	Jan 27	#53
Kennedy is a fake "good ole boy." He is an Oxford-educated attorney	hlthe2b	Jan 26	#15
Who of course calls any half way liberal, Elite, Latte Drinking blah blah blah n/t	hibbing	Jan 26	#21
She should have said -	walkingman	Jan 26	#4
or. im a judge not a constitutional scholar. let me refresh my memory and we can have a discussion.	bullimiami	Jan 26	#11
That was Constitutional Law 101. She should have known the answers	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#20
Disagree.	bullimiami	Jan 28	#78
Yeah, but then she loses Manchin and Sinema's vote	Polybius	Jan 27	#46
Yikes	enough	Jan 26	#6
Fuck Kennedy but she should have known the answer.	Elessar Zappa	Jan 26	#7
And if a Republican judicial nominee had responded that way	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#14
If we ask it, it's weaponizing the hearing.	Captain Zero	Jan 26	#41
Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the 5 rights in the First Amendment	underpants	Jan 26	#8
That doesn't mean Democrats should also appoint judges who don't know the Constitution.	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#19
Got that.	underpants	Jan 26	#38
"tu quoque" is a logical fallacy no matter who employs it. n/t	malthaussen	Jan 26	#33
I got that.	underpants	Jan 26	#37
Frat boy Brett Kavangh was stumped easily enough.	Farmer-Rick	Jan 27	#59
old Foghorn Leg horn	snowybirdie	Jan 26	#9
Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the five freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment	Grins	Jan 26	#10
That doesn't excuse an appointee nominated by a Democrat from knowing	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#23
What is so basic about memorizing the number of a section of the Constitituion?	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#63
old Foghorn Leg horn	snowybirdie	Jan 26	#12
Fuck Kennedy but she should have known the answers.	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#16
Yep, he has.	NYC Liberal	Jan 26	#32
Didn't Republicans push candidates who never practiced law?	RandySF	Jan 26	#17
well by republican standards this makes this person eligible for the Supreme Court.	republianmushroom	Jan 26	#22
Right-wing gotcha question	jmowreader	Jan 26	#24
A judge who is a candidate for the federal bench should know basic constitutional law.	Ocelot II	Jan 26	#29
I agree with you.	malthaussen	Jan 26	#35
You can't be serious in contending District Court judges have no occasion to address Article II	onenote	Jan 26	#45
If her mind blanked, I can easily overlook it.	Torchlight	Jan 26	#25
Oh please. Being able to recall the name of something doesn't	Phoenix61	Jan 26	#28
Google software engineers are expected to know...	Lucky Luciano	Jan 26	#40
As someone with a BS in computer science I believe you are wrong.	Phoenix61	Jan 27	#47
Not a random article or obscure line in the constitution at all	Lucky Luciano	Jan 27	#55
And one she may not have used in her career even once.	Phoenix61	Jan 27	#56
Ok - if she hasn't used it once, then probably not qualified.	Lucky Luciano	Jan 27	#57
Article II- The executive power.	onenote	Jan 27	#67
Yup, but as noted below, I doubt you know the citation to the US Reports for Youngstown Sheet & Tube	MerryHolidays	Jan 28	#76
apply...	myohmy2	Jan 26	#30
If she were a GOP judical nominee, this board would be all over her...	malthaussen	Jan 26	#34
I would be disappointed in a civics student who couldn't answer that question	dsc	Jan 26	#36
I hate Kennedy, but it seems like he did show this person is utterly unqualified.	Lucky Luciano	Jan 26	#39
I'm not sure she's completely unqualified; she seems to have a solid background	Ocelot II	Jan 27	#54
I have to admit...	appmanga	Jan 26	#43
Senator John Kennedy has done this before to nominees	copperearth	Jan 26	#44
Were I in here shoes, I would. Have been embarrassed...	Mark.b	Jan 27	#60
You would think a nominee would bone up a little on the Constitution before being questioned.	Martin68	Jan 27	#61
So, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't know what the First Amendment covered, but that's ok?	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#62
Nope. Neither is "okay."	onenote	Jan 27	#64
Missing a memorization question doesn't make a candidate unfit of the judiciary	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#65
Not knowing what Article II of the Constitution is -- not a "memorization"" question.	onenote	Jan 27	#66
Knowing what is IN it is relevant, not what the specific citation.	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#68
That's absurd.	onenote	Jan 27	#69
Well, since I have been a lawyer for several decades, it's not "absurd"	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#70
I've been one for forty years and I wouldn't want to work with a lawyer that didn't know Article II	onenote	Jan 27	#72
Chill. There are equally many others that disagree with you.	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#75
Are you a lawyer? Just asking. n/t	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#71
Yes. Became a member of the bar in 1978. Law Review. Honors graduate	onenote	Jan 27	#73
Ok. Fair enough!	MerryHolidays	Jan 27	#74
I agree that asking for the citation to a particular case would be over the line.	onenote	Jan 28	#77
Good points, and on that, I think we agree	MerryHolidays	Jan 28	#79
Hate when one of our own looks like an empty suit	BeyondGeography	Feb 14	#80

Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Jan 26, 2023, 04:35 PM

Freethinker65 (8,237 posts)

1. Refresh my memory, in your own words, Senator Kennedy

Would have been a better response.

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

1. Refresh my memory, in your own words, Senator Kennedy

2. She should have known. There's no excuse for a federal judicial nominee

13. Yup. Absolutely. Who the hell vetted her?

18. Yah

26. She is not nominated for a Supreme Court seat.

27. And you somehow think a FEDERAL judge should not know the constitution? Really?

31. All federal judges should be familiar with these issues, not just Supreme Court nominees.

42. Agree. In order to make rulings on a case, Judges review the law and constitution as it pertains.

49. They decided them by careful review of applicable case law etc. nt

52. A sitting federal judge shouldn't have to look up what is covered

58. I agree. She should not have been nominated. nt

3. I would love one of the news media to ask Kennedy about a specific article of the Constitution, and

5. Don't let Kennedy's Foghorn Leghorn demeanor fool you.

48. He knew the answers because he had the opportunity

50. The general topics of the articles of the Constitution isn't snap knowledge

51. So you have instant recall of everything you learned

53. No, but I didn't have to look up the topics covered by articles II and V

15. Kennedy is a fake "good ole boy." He is an Oxford-educated attorney

21. Who of course calls any half way liberal, Elite, Latte Drinking blah blah blah n/t

4. She should have said -

11. or. im a judge not a constitutional scholar. let me refresh my memory and we can have a discussion.

20. That was Constitutional Law 101. She should have known the answers

78. Disagree.

46. Yeah, but then she loses Manchin and Sinema's vote

6. Yikes

7. Fuck Kennedy but she should have known the answer.

14. And if a Republican judicial nominee had responded that way

41. If we ask it, it's weaponizing the hearing.

8. Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the 5 rights in the First Amendment

19. That doesn't mean Democrats should also appoint judges who don't know the Constitution.

38. Got that.

33. "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy no matter who employs it. n/t

37. I got that.

59. Frat boy Brett Kavangh was stumped easily enough.

9. old Foghorn Leg horn

10. Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the five freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment

23. That doesn't excuse an appointee nominated by a Democrat from knowing

63. What is so basic about memorizing the number of a section of the Constitituion?

12. old Foghorn Leg horn

16. Fuck Kennedy but she should have known the answers.

32. Yep, he has.

17. Didn't Republicans push candidates who never practiced law?

22. well by republican standards this makes this person eligible for the Supreme Court.

24. Right-wing gotcha question

29. A judge who is a candidate for the federal bench should know basic constitutional law.

35. I agree with you.

45. You can't be serious in contending District Court judges have no occasion to address Article II

25. If her mind blanked, I can easily overlook it.

28. Oh please. Being able to recall the name of something doesn't

40. Google software engineers are expected to know...

47. As someone with a BS in computer science I believe you are wrong.

55. Not a random article or obscure line in the constitution at all

56. And one she may not have used in her career even once.

57. Ok - if she hasn't used it once, then probably not qualified.

67. Article II- The executive power.

76. Yup, but as noted below, I doubt you know the citation to the US Reports for Youngstown Sheet & Tube

30. apply...

34. If she were a GOP judical nominee, this board would be all over her...

36. I would be disappointed in a civics student who couldn't answer that question

39. I hate Kennedy, but it seems like he did show this person is utterly unqualified.

54. I'm not sure she's completely unqualified; she seems to have a solid background

43. I have to admit...

44. Senator John Kennedy has done this before to nominees

60. Were I in here shoes, I would. Have been embarrassed...

61. You would think a nominee would bone up a little on the Constitution before being questioned.

62. So, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't know what the First Amendment covered, but that's ok?

64. Nope. Neither is "okay."

65. Missing a memorization question doesn't make a candidate unfit of the judiciary

66. Not knowing what Article II of the Constitution is -- not a "memorization"" question.

68. Knowing what is IN it is relevant, not what the specific citation.

69. That's absurd.

70. Well, since I have been a lawyer for several decades, it's not "absurd"

72. I've been one for forty years and I wouldn't want to work with a lawyer that didn't know Article II

75. Chill. There are equally many others that disagree with you.

71. Are you a lawyer? Just asking. n/t

73. Yes. Became a member of the bar in 1978. Law Review. Honors graduate

74. Ok. Fair enough!

77. I agree that asking for the citation to a particular case would be over the line.

79. Good points, and on that, I think we agree