by Becca London
At the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, several Biden nominees for Federal judicial positions appeared before Judiciary Committee members for questions.
But one group of questions in particular is causing shock and even anger among the public as the video starts to go viral.
The questions were posed by Lousiana Senator John Kennedy (R) to state Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, who was nominated by Biden for the lifetime position of U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.
The “answers” were non-existent.
Kennedy began by asking Judge Bjelkengren, about Article V of the US Constitution.
Bjelkengren responded, “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment.”
Article V outlines the process in which the Constitution can be amended.
Kennedy then asked, “Okay, how about Article II?”
“Neither is Article II,” Bjelkengren replied.
Article II establishes the executive branch of the federal government, outlining the branch’s roles and duties.
Most high school civics students could answer that basic question, let alone a would-be Federal judge.
By the way, if confirmed, Bjelkengren would receive a lifetime position with a salary of $223,400 per year plus generous pension and benefits.
After a pause, Kennedy asked the judge, “Do you know what ‘Purposivism’ is?” referencing the legal theory that statutes should be interpreted according to their “purpose,” as opposed to the plain text meaning.
The judge replied, “Um, in my 12 years as an Assistant Attorney General, uh, and my nine years serving as a judge, I was not faced with that precise question. Um, we are the highest trial court in Washington State, so I’m frequently faced with, um, issues that I’m not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law, our research, and apply the law to the facts presented to me.”
Kennedy responded, “Well, you’re gonna be faced with it if you’re confirmed, I can assure you.”
After turning to another nominee, Kennedy returned to Bjelkengren, with a question about a critical legal matter that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has been in the news frequently of late.
“Can you tell me what the Independent State Legislature Theory is?” Kennedy asked. “I’m just asking you not your opinion, just what is it? It’s before the Supreme Court now.”
Later in the hearing, Judge Bjelkengren could not answer a question on a legal theory that is currently before the US Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/RDeEYc0vr8— Ari Hoffman (@thehoffather) January 26, 2023
Bjelkengren repeated her previous answer, “Uh, in my 12 years as a Washington State Assistant Attorney General…” Kennedy sighed and said “Right,” before the judge continued, “and that particular, um, doctrine was not presented to me.”
Moore vs. Harper, which is currently before the US Supreme Court, involves challenges to North Carolina’s congressional map and involves the Independent State Legislature Theor
Bjelkengren was recommended with great fanfare by Joe Biden last year, despite the fact that her experience is pretty minimal, having been just an Asst. Attorney General for Washington State, and having served as a judge on the Spokane County Court. Spokane is just the 4th most populous county in the state.
But most of Biden’s recommendation of Bjelkengren had nothing to do with what she could do, and rather what she looked like:
She would be the first woman of color to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and the first Black woman to serve on a United States District Court in the state of Washington
Yep. Another Democrat diversity hire. Like Kamala. Like “Mayor Pete.” Totally incompetent, but gets the job to “check a box.” Pathetic.
She should have simply answered honestly with "It's an inconvenient obstacle to the far-left political agenda."— RV (@rkd00112233) January 26, 2023
What should have happened straight after:— Calvin╭ರ_⊙ (@TisMoreorLess) January 26, 2023
The Judical Commitee:
"Uh-huh…you are excused, then."
Just a Pap test.— CopperGRL (@CopperColoGirl) January 26, 2023
“I decide on issues with my feelings”— cybrtrk 🚀 (@PhilipEmanuele) January 26, 2023
Well that seals it… totally qualified on account of gender and whatever race she identifies as. Not that knowing the law, particularly the Constitution is a requirement or anything, but she does check a couple boxes on the oppressed person list. 🤡— KirksDropKick 🇺🇸 🪖 🚀 🥋 (@KirksDropKick) January 26, 2023