Biden judicial nominee sweats bullets when Sen. John Kennedy stumps her with basic legal questions: 'Sure, you'll look it up'
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) stumped yet another Biden judicial nominee on Wednesday with basic questions that would be pertinent to the nominee's job.
Last month, President Joe Biden nominated U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Meriweather to a fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Federal Claims. The unique court comprises 16 judges, holds national jurisdiction, and is tasked with deciding cases involving monetary claims that U.S. citizens make against the federal government.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Kennedy sought to establish whether Meriweather has any experience with the court, an important résumé point considering she may serve on it.
At first, Kennedy forced Meriweather to admit she has neither argued a case in the Court of Federal Claims nor tried any cases in the court. Then, he asked her for specific answers to basic questions.
"Tell me the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims," he requested.
The nominee, in response, provided a long, drawn-out answer in which she claimed "the same rules" that apply in district courts apply in the Court of Federal Claims. But she failed to provide the grounds for granting a new trial, as Kennedy had requested.
"So, what are the grounds for granting a new trial?" the senator asked again.
"My understanding is that a new trial, you would have to comply with the applicable rules—" she responded.
"I know that. But what are they? What are the grounds?" Kennedy pressed. "You said that the rules are identical to the Court of Federal Claims and federal district court — I'm not sure that’s accurate. But just tell me: what are the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?"
Finally, Meriweather admitted that she does not know because "that is not an issue I have had occasion to consider before." The admission in hand, Kennedy broadened the scope of his inquiry.
"Can you tell me one single ground for granting a new trial in either a federal district court or the Court of Federal Claims as we sit here today?" he asked.
Meriweather managed to name one — "gross misapplication of the law" — and when pressed on whether she could name any other, she could not, again citing inexperience with motions for a new trial.
For the final question of Kennedy's legal exam, he asked Meriweather if she could define contracts of adhesion, a type of case the Court of Federal Claims deals with. After hemming and hawing, Meriweather finally admitted that she couldn't recall what an adhesion contract is.
"Sure, you'll look it up," Kennedy snarked.
Finally, Kennedy peppered Meriweather with multiple pre-trial detention rulings that she made in criminal cases that were later overturned by district judges.
Taking Kennedy's impromptu legal exam is a rite of passage for judicial nominees who go before the Senate. Kennedy's questions have left many of Biden's judicial nominees embarrassed because they were unable to answer simple questions.
One nominee even asked Biden to withdraw her nomination after a rocky hearing last year.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
GOP senator embarrasses Biden nominee for federal appeals court with basic question about Constitution
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) stumped yet another Biden judicial nominee on Wednesday with basic questions on constitutional legal doctrine.
At a hearing to consider federal District Court Judge Ana de Alba for a spot on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Kennedy asked de Alba to explain the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine and the Commerce Clause, which is found in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
"This has been in the news a lot lately, and you'll probably see it if you're confirmed to the Court of Appeal. Tell me about the Dormant Commerce Clause," Kennedy quizzed.
De Alba responded that she is only "somewhat familiar with the Commerce Clause," indicating where to find it in the Constitution — but said nothing about the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Kennedy responded by helping her. He explained that "there was a big Supreme Court case" dealing with the Dormant Commerce Clause that just came out of California (which came from the very appeals court to which de Alba is nominated). De Alba then apologized for not being able to answer his question, justifying her knowledge gap by explaining that she has never dealt with it as a practicing lawyer or judge. She then promised to research it.
But things got worse when Kennedy asked de Alba to discuss the Commerce Clause broadly.
"So, my understanding about the Commerce Clause, like I stated, senator, is that it is under Article 1 of the Constitution, and it allows the legislature to create laws that allow for movement and things related to commerce in the United States and anything crossing state lines, things like that," de Alba explained.
In follow-up questions, Kennedy asked "between whom" the clause permits Congress to regulate commerce.
"Between states, for example," de Alba said.
"Anybody else?" Kennedy asked.
"It's not coming to mind right now, senator," de Alba admitted.
Kennedy questions de Alba, Ramirez in Judiciary www.youtube.com
The Commerce Clause, found in Article 1, Section 8, grants to Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
The Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, on the other hand, "refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce," Cornell Law explains.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving California Proposition 12, a state law that says pork products important into the state must meet specific animal welfare standards. The federal government challenged the law, arguing it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. But the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, disagreed, upholding the law.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Manchin torpedoes controversial Biden nominee for Federal Reserve regulator
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin may have put the kibosh on Sarah Bloom Raskin, President Joe Biden's nominee for a top regulatory position at the Federal Reserve. The senator said Monday he is "unable to support her nomination" to be the vice chair of supervision at the Fed.
Lacking Manchin's support, Democrats will likely not have the votes needed to confirm Raskin, who has called for the Fed to punish banks and financial institutions that have business agreements with fossil fuel energy companies as a way to fight climate change. Raskin's positions on energy were central to Manchin's statement opposing her nomination.
"Now more than ever, the United States must have policy leaders and economic experts who are focused on the most pressing issues facing the American people and our nation - specifically rising inflation and energy cost," Manchin said in a statement Monday.
"I have carefully reviewed Sarah Bloom Raskin’s qualifications and previous public statements. Her previous public statements have failed to satisfactorily address my concerns about the critical importance of financing an all-of-the-above energy policy to meet our nation’s critical energy needs," he added.
Sarah Bloom Raskin's previous public statements have failed to satisfactorily address my concerns about the critical importance of financing an all-of-the-above energy policy to meet our nation\u2019s critical energy needs. I'm unable to support her nomination to @federalreserve Boardpic.twitter.com/0tDVXtRpKc— Senator Joe Manchin (@Senator Joe Manchin) 1647276622
Raskin is the second major Biden nomination Manchin has torpedoed. A little more than a year ago, Manchin said he would not support the nomination of Neera Tanden to lead the White House Office of Management and Budget. At the time, the moderate Democrat cited "overtly partisan statements" Tanden had made on social media as cause to believe she "will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget."
Manchin's rejection of Biden's nominee then drew outrage from the left, and so has his rejection of Raskin now.
"After all the psychoanalyzing of Manchin over the past year, it's become quite evident that the explanation for his behavior is simple: He's deeply, deeply corrupt," Salon politics writer Amanda Marcotte accused.
Occupy Democrats, an activist left-wing group that's popular on social media, posted, "Senator Joe Manchin stabs Joe Biden in the back again" and wrote in all-caps: "RT IF YOU THINK MANCHIN SHOULD BE BOOTED FROM THE PARTY!"
The White House has given no indication that Raskin's nomination will be pulled and seems to be ignoring Manchin's statement for now.
"[Sarah Bloom Raskin] is one of the most qualified people to have ever been nominated for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors – she previously served on the Board and she served as second-in-command at Treasury, both positions where she earned bipartisan Senate confirmation," deputy press secretary Chris Meagher tweeted after Manchin released his statement.
"We are working to line up the bipartisan support that she deserves, so that she can be confirmed by the Senate for this important position," he added.
A spokesperson for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Monday that the committee will move forward with Bloom's nomination.
"Senator Brown is working to move forward Ms. Bloom Raskin’s nomination with bipartisan support, as Ms. Bloom Raskin has earned twice before," Browns office said.
While bipartisan support for Raskin could still save her nomination, technically, she's faced intense opposition from GOP senators. Republicans have criticized Raskin's controversial positions on climate change and scrutinized her time serving on the board of Reserve Trust, a fintech trust company. Reserve Trust became the only non-bank state-chartered trust to receive access to the Federal Reserve's payment system while Raskin, a former Fed official, was serving on the company's board between May 2017 and August 2019.
Republicans have questioned whether Raskin, who served as a Fed governor from 2010 to 2014, persuaded the Fed to give Reserve Trust a master account and then received 200,000 shares of company stock as compensation. The sale of those stocks is the subject of an ethics complaint filed by the watchdog group American Accountability Foundation against Raskin's husband, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
AAF took credit for sinking Biden's nominee after Manchin published his statement.
BREAKING: AAF research sinks another Biden nominee, Sarah Bloom Raskin.\n\nThrough our investigation, we exposed her radical views on fossil fuels, partisan politics, and shady ethics.pic.twitter.com/9PQjW4iio4— Biden Noms | American Accountability Foundation (@Biden Noms | American Accountability Foundation) 1647279932
"Through our investigation, we exposed her radical views on fossil fuels, partisan politics, and shady ethics," the group said.
Watchdog group files ethics complaint against Trump impeachment ringleader Rep. Jamie Raskin
A conservative watchdog group has filed an ethics complaint against Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin after he failed to properly disclose stock shares that his wife — who was nominated by President Joe Biden to regulate banking at the Federal Reserve — received for advising a Colorado-based financial technology trust company.
The American Accountability Foundation on Monday said in a complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics that the Maryland lawmaker had failed to disclose his wife Sarah Bloom Raskin's ownership of a massive amount of stock and did not report the million-dollar sale of those stocks in the time period required by law.
The complaint was first reported by Fox Business. It cited a Business Insider report that revealed that Jamie Raskin disclosed in August 2021 that his wife Sarah Bloom Raskin sold 195,936 shares of Reserve Trust for $1.5 million, according to his federal financial documents. But Raskin reported the stock sale, which happened on Dec. 12, 2020, eight months after the fact.
According to AAF, Raskin violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act, by failing to report his wife's financial gain in time. The law was passed in 2012 and is intended to increase transparency on Capitol Hill by making it illegal for members of Congress or their families to profit by trading stocks with insider knowledge. Under the law, Sarah Bloom Raskin's stock payout should have been reported to Congress within 45 days of the transaction.
"Sarah and Jamie Raskin are career politicians who have used the system to enrich themselves, and it is time that someone holds them accountable," AAF founder Tom Jones said in a statement. "If House rules are going to mean anything, the House Ethics Committee needs to open an investigation and sanction Jamie Raskin for hiding this shady stock deal from the public."
Raskin, a top House Democrat, is best known for leading the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. His wife Sarah is Biden's nominee to be vice chairwoman of supervision at the Federal Reserve, the most powerful banking regulator in the government. She previously held positions at the U.S. Treasury and the Fed during the Obama administration.
In a statement to Business Insider, Raskin acknowledged that he turned in his financial disclosure late, explaining that the death of his 25-year-old son Thomas on Dec. 31, 2020, happened just after the stock sale.
"We lost our son during the reporting period, and I filed the report late," the lawmaker said.
The AAF complaint recognized the "tragic loss" of the Raskin's son, writing that "any reasonable person would agree that they should be afforded some latitude in meeting filing requirements during that time." However, the complaint notes that Raskin "quickly returned to his official duties" and led the impeachment trial against Trump in January.
"If Representative Raskin was able to perform these official duties during this time, it is reasonable to expect that he should have been able to comply with the Periodic Transaction Report requirements during these times and not frustrate the legitimate ends of Congressional oversight by waiting nine months to disclose the sale," the complaint said.
The possible ethics violation is sure to give Republicans ammunition to oppose Sarah Bloom Raskin's nomination to the Fed. GOP lawmakers have already questioned her controversial positions on climate change, which include calling for the Fed to punish banks and financial institutions that have business agreements with fossil-fuel energy companies.
Bloom Raskin has also faced questions about her time with Reserve Trust, joining the company in May 2017 and leaving in August 2019. While she served on Reserve Trust's board, the company received access to the Fed's payment system and was the only non-bank state-chartered trust to do so. The company had previously applied for a master account and was denied in June 2017.
Republicans have questioned whether Bloom Raskin, who served as a Fed governor from 2010 to 2014, persuaded the Fed to give Reserve Trust a master account and then received 200,000 shares of company stock as compensation.
Sarah Bloom Raskin has denied any wrongdoing.
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."
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com