Sen. Kennedy celebrates victory after Biden judicial nominee who couldn't answer basic legal questions withdraws nomination
Sen. John Kennedy (R) declared victory on Wednesday over news that Charnelle Marie Bjelkengren's federal judicial nomination is not being renewed.
Last January, Kennedy stumped Bjelkengren during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when he asked her basic questions about the Constitution. Bjelkengren serves on the Spokane County Superior Court, and President Joe Biden had nominated her for a federal district court position.
At that infamous hearing, Bjelkengren could not explain the content of Article II and Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) reflected on the hearing days later, saying that Bjelkengren had "flunked" questions on basic civics subjects that "high schoolers across America learn each year."
Bjelkengren's nomination expired at the end of 2023 because, even though it was advanced out of committee, the full Senate never voted on it. Biden could have renominated Bjelkengren, but her name was absent from the list of the re-nominations that Biden submitted to the Senate this week. That means Bjelkengren will not serve on the federal judiciary.
Kennedy celebrated the development.
"Biden sent us a nominee who didn't know the basics of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Bjelkengren is right to bow out," he said. "Unfortunately, Biden just keeps trying to put unqualified people on the bench — for life. People who don't know the law have no business running our courtrooms."
— (@)
Bjelkengren, meanwhile, revealed that she asked Biden not to re-submit her name for nomination.
"I asked the President not to re-nominate me due to the uncertainty of my confirmation, and in order to advance the important work of the federal judiciary," she said in a statement. "My hope is for the swift confirmation of the next nominee."
"I care deeply about justice, Spokane County Superior Court, the people of Spokane County and Washington State," she added. "In the last year and a half, while I navigated the nomination process, it was taxing on both a personal and professional level. I am eager to refocus all of my energy and efforts on the good work my colleagues and I do on a daily basis, in Spokane County."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Um, sorry': GOP senator embarrasses Biden judicial nominee with question about basic court functions
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) stumped yet another Biden judicial nominee on Wednesday when he asked for definitions of basic court actions and legal doctrines.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Kennedy asked Sara Hill — who President Joe Biden nominated to a federal judgeship in the Northern District of Oklahoma — a barrage of questions testing her legal knowledge.
To begin, Kennedy asked Hill to define collateral estoppel, a legal doctrine important to civil and criminal law. After hemming and hawing for several seconds, Hill claimed she knew the doctrine but never provided an answer and blamed "the bright lights of the moment" for her failure to provide a substantive answer.
Next, Kennedy asked Hill about the amount in controversy requirement, the 13th Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment. She passed those questions with flying colors.
But when Kennedy asked Hill to define the difference between a "stay" and an "injunction" — two critical functions of a court — Hill was stumped.
"A stay order would prohibit — um, sorry. An injunction would restrain the parties from taking action. A stay order— I'm not sure I can, actually can, can give you that," Hill responded.
Kennedy questions Sara Hill in Judiciary www.youtube.com
A "stay" and an "injunction" are two forms of judicial relief, and there is an important distinction between the two.
An injunction is a judicial order that compels a party in a case to act or enjoins them from acting in a certain way. A stay, on the other hand, temporarily halts legal proceedings to protect the rights of a party. In federal court, stays are commonly issued on district court rulings when the case is appealed to a higher court.
After Hill fumbled the question, Kennedy pressed her about multidistrict litigation, Rule 12(b)(6), and the standard of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
When Kennedy concluded his questions, committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D) congratulated Hill for "surviving the John Kennedy six-minute bar exam." Hill admitted in response that one of her law school professors would be "appalled" at her performance.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Radical left-wing judicial nominee Dale Ho doesn't think Florida is a democracy
A radical left-wing Biden judicial nominee apparently believes that the state of Florida is not a democracy, according to comments he made years ago that will complicate his Senate confirmation.
Dale Ho, a former ACLU lawyer, is President Joe Biden's nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He made headlines last month after video from a 2018 lecture he gave resurfaced, in which Ho said that the United States Senate and the Electoral College were "anti-democratic" institutions. At the time, Ho was the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights project.
In 2019, video resurfaced by Townhall.com; Ho gave another lecture where he questions Florida's state as a democracy because of laws prohibiting certain felons from voting.
In 2019, Biden federal district judge nominee Dale Ho wondered "how do you call Florida a democracy" when convicted felons are unable to vote in Florida.pic.twitter.com/sjNYWTHbjP— Townhall.com (@Townhall.com) 1642020714
"How do you call Florida a democracy if one out of ten people can't vote in that state because of a criminal conviction?" he asked rhetorically.
The ACLU and other left-wing activist groups oppose laws that prevent felons from voting, referring to them as "disenfranchisement laws." According to the ACLU, an estimated 5.85 million Americans with felony convictions are not allowed to vote because of such state laws.
In Florida, it is illegal for convicted murderers or those with a felony sexual offense to vote. Individuals convicted of other offenses may have their voting rights restored after completion of their sentences, including parole and probation. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in 2019 signed a controversial law that defines "completion of sentence" to include the full payment of any restitution and fees. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in October after two Florida felons claimed Florida's Republican-controlled legislature intended to discriminate against low-income minorities by creating a financial barrier to the restoration of felon voting rights.
But other states have similar laws, some even more restrictive than Florida's. Townhall writer Spencer Brown observes that by Ho's standards, Alabama, Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming aren't democracies either.
Ho has previously called referred to "felon disenfranchisement" as stripping "the right to vote from people because of a criminal conviction," arguing that states need to change their laws to remove "long-standing barriers" to voting.
He's made many other controversial comments, some of which were brought up by Republican senators during his confirmation hearing in early December. In one tweet, Ho suggested that Republicans would use a Supreme Court majority to remain in power if the "Electoral College, Senate malapportionment and extreme gerrymandering" were insufficient.
In writings, Ho said a colleague once asked him if he works as a voting rights lawyer because he wants to help people or because "you hate conservatives," which became the subject of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's grilling questions.
And in 2015, Ho compared voter identification requirements to "chemotherapy."
"Obviously, all of us are against voter fraud, right?" he said. "The question that I think we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the mechanism that we’re using to try to prevent this problem is appropriate to the task. I’m against cancer, but I don’t think everyone in this room should get chemotherapy."
Biden judicial nominee Dale Ho said Senate, Electoral College are 'anti-democratic' institutions: 2018 video
A Biden judicial nominee is making headlines after a video from 2018 surfaced in which he makes the claim that the United States Senate and Electoral College are "anti-democratic."
Dale Ho, President Joe Biden's nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has previously been accused by GOP senators of showing "open contempt for the Constitution." Video of a speech he gave at the 2018 National Civic Leadership Training Summit is likely to affirm that charge in the minds of Senate Republicans.
"We had obviously lots of practices that are anti-democratic, that entrench in some ways minority rule in this country, and I'm talking about things like, you know, the Senate, the Electoral College, and the maldistribution of political power that results from those institutions," said Ho, who is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights project.
WATCH: Biden federal district judge nominee Dale Ho calls the Senate and the Electoral College "anti-democratic"pic.twitter.com/vfOi3N6Et9— Townhall.com (@Townhall.com) 1639591693
He also said that the United States should change its laws to make "voting easier" and that "long-standing barriers" such as "felon disenfranchisement" strip "the right to vote from people because of a criminal conviction."
Ho, who was nominated for a lifetime appointment to an unelected office, came under fire from Republicans during his confirmation hearing earlier this month for a series of controversial statements he made on social media during the Trump administration.
Republicans brought up several tweets he posted criticizing GOP lawmakers including Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), each of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee and are overseeing his nomination.
“I very much regret the tone that I’ve taken on social media from time to time, particularly if it’s given anyone the impression that I wouldn’t be impartial,” Ho told lawmakers at the hearing.
Lee made a point of bringing up a tweet in which Ho suggested Republicans would use a Supreme Court majority to stay in power if the "Electoral College, Senate malapportionment and extreme gerrymandering" were not enough.
Ho said he was referring to news reports in 2020 of states potentially appointing their own presidential electors to overturn the election, but Lee said his tweet showed "open contempt for the Constitution" and was disqualifying for a potential federal judge.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also grilled Ho about writings in which Ho said a colleague once asked him if he works as a voting rights lawyer because he wants to help people or because "you hate conservatives." Ho said the point of that question was to highlight how "anger" can be a "tremendous source of power."
Dale Ho\u2014Biden\u2019s nominee for the Southern District of New York\u2014has written about his hatred of conservatives.\n \nIf a conservative were to appear before his courtroom, why would they be confident he would be fair and impartial?pic.twitter.com/p36VFYPePo— Senator Ted Cruz (@Senator Ted Cruz) 1638391832
"I was relaying a joke that someone else had told, the point of which was that that kind of temporary sugar rush from being angry at someone — while it can feel powerful in a moment — it’s not the kind of thing that is sustaining for a human being, in the long run, that at the end of the day, if you want to do good work in the world, it has to come from a different place, a place of love for your fellow person," Ho said.
Ho has made other controversial statements. Earlier this week, Fox News reported comments Ho made in 2015 while speaking about voter identification requirements at an event in Wisconsin. Ho compared voter ID to "chemotherapy."
"We always have to weigh the costs against the methods, so let me talk about for a second about what you asked — that question about does this enhance the integrity of our elections, right? Obviously, we all believe that election integrity is important, right?" Ho said at the event.
"Obviously, all of us are against voter fraud, right?" he continued. "The question that I think we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the mechanism that we’re using to try to prevent this problem is appropriate to the task. I’m against cancer, but I don’t think everyone in this room should get chemotherapy."
Ho is supported for confirmation to the federal bench by progressive groups and has a glowing endorsement from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Ho was also strongly supported by Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) commenting that Ho's passion should not be mistaken for anger.
freebeacon.com
freebeacon.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com