WATCH: Biden Nominee for Federal Judge Can’t Answer Basic Questions About U.S. Constitution

Advertisement

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?”

WATCH:

“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.”

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 Theory, which argues that the US Constitution gives state elected officials near-absolute power to regulate federal elections without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power.

Advertisement

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.

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1618648781180010498
Advertisement

6 thoughts on “WATCH: Biden Nominee for Federal Judge Can’t Answer Basic Questions About U.S. Constitution

  1. Her smugness is disgusting. She should feel shame for her lack of knowledge about basic parts of the law that federal judges face.

  2. I also appreciated the amount of research and resources that were provided. It made the information easy to understand and follow. I will surely be sharing this blog with my colleague and family.

  3. I just finished going through your article and I have to comment, it was an undivided pleasure. Your writing technique is engaging and descriptive, making me feel like I was right there with you on your experience. The picture you included were also incredible and really added to the overall experience. cheers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *