There have been issues with the leftist judicial appointments that Joe Biden has selected. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s response to the question “Can you define a woman?” may have been the most eye-opening of all the question-and-answer sessions.
She stated she was not a biologist. With Biden’s selections, we’ve shifted that far to the extremist left. How can you examine topics pertaining to women’s rights if you cannot define a woman?
Nevertheless, she was easily elected to a permanent position on the Supreme Court.
Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, whose been selected by Joe Biden and referred by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) for a chair on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Municipality of Washington, ran into serious trouble on Wednesday. She failed to answer a handful of basic queries from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA).
Kennedy invited her to explain the purpose of Article V of the Constitution. Bjelkengren said, “Article V does not come to mind right now.”
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
Now, the majority of people may not be able to answer these questions instantly.
However, aspiring federal judges should have at least a passing familiarity with the Articles’ subject matter. This is equivalent to not being prepared for a job interview. How can you judge on constitutional issues if you are unfamiliar with its provisions?
Article V of the Constitution is concerned with amending the Constitution, whereas Article II is concerned with the functions of the Executive Branch, headed by the presidency. Two articles contain matters that are likely to be litigated before federal courts.
Kennedy also questioned her to define “purposivism” – a legal doctrine which holds that, where there is a dispute between the purpose and language of the law, the purpose should take precedence. Bjelkengren stated she was unfamiliar with the matter.
Bjelkengren noted throughout her 12 years as a deputy attorney general and nine years as a judge, she had never been asked this specific topic.
She proceeded by stating as the highest trial court in the state of Washington, she was regularly confronted with unfamiliar challenges, for which she meticulously examined the legislation, conducted research, and applied it to the provided circumstances.
Kennedy did not look impressed. He stated she would be confronted with it if she was verified.
Now, Kennedy does not save this line of inquiry just for Democratic contenders; he also hammered a candidate nominated by President Donald Trump who had trouble answering questions.
This caused a stir at the time. This candidate, Matthew Petersen, had the integrity to beg Trump to pull his name from consideration.
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) January 26, 2023
Given this, one would assume the Democrats would have vetted their nominee.
This is unlikely to receive the attention it merits from the liberal mainstream. They should remove the nomination, but since Joe Biden and the Democrats are involved, it is unlikely that this nominee will be withdrawn.This article appeared in The Political Globe and has been published here with permission.