During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) laced into Kenly Kiya Kato, nominee to be a United States District Judge for the Central District Of California over a paper she wrote in law school.
Because she KNOWS that if she answers truthfully then she'll be forced to deal with the contradiction in her agenda. She knows the logical loophole that she has and refuses to go down that hypocritical road. If you love affirmative action, great - just say so! It's infuriating. The strategy is to stonewall, use as many extra words as she can over 5 minutes, and just "get through it." If we did a drinking game for every time she says, "Senator, again..." we'd have to call the paramedics for alcohol poisoning.
Here’s the thing though; she already is a judge!!! She is just being nominated for a higher court! The question is what sort of verdicts has she been rendering up to this point?
Should judge's sense of morality affect how judgement is rendered? If law says slavery is legal, should judge ignore the law because he/she thinks it's immoral? It's a common debate point at law school. How about guns? If a judge thinks it's immoral to have guns on school grounds, can he imprison a teacher for having gun at school when the law says he can? Morality is subjective, law is not. Judge should always ethically make legal rules, not moral rules.
The playbook is to PRETEND to be loyal to precedent to get nominated, so they can pontificate on the immorality of the law, bloviate on how morally superior they are and how they must tear down the legal standards of oppression. Theater, and bad theater at that.
@@dk418 Yes, it should affect the issue, welcome to the world of common law. Morality is always used in decisions, it is the imperative and underscore of the law itself. Law is always balanced with personal and socital morality in literally every important case ruling in history...
Employers have to hire people like her. It's the law. Maybe she'll sue because she didn't get the job based on biases that the senator thinks you should have intelligence and a moral compass. She can't answer a basic moral question.
That's actually the most honest thing she said. Her job is to interpret the law. It's the legislature's job to insert collective morality into the laws. The problem is, she's shown that she's not capable of interpreting the law.
@brandonbuchner1771 I wouldn't use the term "honest." Nothing these people say means anything. The left is never held accountable for their actions or words. I don't see y your rebutting this one
The disgraced, twice impeached former president had a number of judicial candidates rated not qualified by the bar association that Cancun Teddy voted for.
It is so frustrating when these people cannot answer a simple question of morality, yet are seeking positions where their moral center will decide the lives of others. Frightening. She should never hold any position of power over anyone else, nor should any politician who refuses to answer the simplest of questions.
@@robinstewart6510 Mark Zuckerberg started it and they, the sheep, followed. It's a tactic, calling them by their title over and over. The senators should tell them to stop thanking them for the question and stop saying senator.
@@robinstewart6510 The questions require a more elaborate answer not a yes or no, using certain words, repeating them actually it’s a strategy in order to gain time, in order to answer something even tough it has nothing to do with a possible answer, as well as irritating the other party… her whole demeanor is weird starting with her face hidden half way by her hair… looks like a teenager with issues… the style…
If that were the case, 7 of the 9 justices sitting on the Supreme Court wouldn’t be there today…in a perfect world we would also have a court that doesn’t have lifetime appointments and term limits for all of congress. FOTM is that judges are supposed to be completely obtuse, because that’s what being non biased is.
Please reject this nominee. She is either lying or incompetent, and neither is good. She reviewed something she wrote as a 23 year old right before the hearing and doesn't remember the context???
He very specifically asked her, more than once, whether that was her stance today. She continually neglects to answer simple questions, with yes, or no, answers, in order to run out the clock
@@acmenipponair why lie? Do you just assume your audience isn't going to check it? You're probably right. Unfortunately for you, I'm not your audience. The Senate increased the debt limit on Dec 14, 2021. The Senate extended gov't funding, 69-28 on Dec 2, 2021. Aug 10, Aug 11, June 8, April 29, 2021 all passed budget-related stuff. April 22, a measure to combat hate crimes against Asian-Americans passed the Senate 94-1(only Senator Hawley likes hate crimes against Asian-Americans) On July 29, the Senate unanimously approved emergency funding for the Capitol police and for expanding the Afganistan visa program. You are a liar. You just make stuff up. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jesus.... Another activist that won't answer questions. And with out "context" of something she wrote and said she reviewed it. Ffs... Just more burn up the timer with out answering anything.
Her translated response is, "Senator, your question is just too hard for me to truthfully answer. Please stop asking me to stand-up for what I produced in Harvard Law school." "I only wrote that paper to get a passing grade and to show that I could think outside the box". Well, she certainly thinks outside the box doesn't she now. She would rip the lips off some poor defendant who came before her as she presented herself to this Senate Judicial Nominee hearing. And to think she wants to be a Supreme Court judge........FOR LIFE!! Oh h*ll no! Simply Ludicrous. 👎🏽Thank you Senators Grassley and Cruz.
I get ur sentiment but she’s walking on broken glass up there. How would you feel if you had to go in front of the senate when you were trying to get promoted? My point with this is that if she stays calm and gives meh answers then she’ll get in, but if she gives bold answers or says one thing out of line she’s out of there. Not to mention they’ll bring up any bold statements she makes here in the future. It reminds me of how Beto said he was coming for our guns and now that’s all he’s remembered for. She doesn’t want to be Beto.
@@KachinaPeak the problem is theres already troubling things shes said and having no answer rather than a bold answer isnt much better. How it looks to the public when she dodges the same basic question so much that the senator has to break it down further and further to the point hes trying to get through to a child. All these nominees are the same they just couldnt help but get emotional and go on twitter or write something in the past. She should be thrown out with anyone else linked to the left. Weve had enough weak left wing madness its out of toutch it doesnt work and th3se people need to be punished.
I don't get it. This is her job interview. She can't answer the most basic questions. I swear if he asked her if the sky is blue, she would do everything to avoid saying 'yes'.
Have you ever seen any one of them answer any questions? Republicans or Democrats they do the same. And cruz is just a clown just looking for gotcha questions for fox news soundbites.
@@abelincoln7346 Yes, they were held to a higher standard than everyone else. Thereby limiting their potential as they literally had to out perform everyone else just to be even. That is what Cruz is talking about when he mentions that Harvard is before the Supreme Court right now for doing
If I was a person who could read body language, I would say that the judge's eye fluttering is her panic button going into overdrive as her brain is trying to think on how to get herself out of this situation.
Someone feeling anxious or telling a lie blinks more often, and a person deep in concentration or thought blinks less often. But what if you blink far more or far less than the average? Excessive blinking may indicate the onset of Tourette syndrome, strokes, or disorders of the nervous system.
@@OleNieling Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013). People tend to blink more rapidly when they become nervous or when they hear or see something unpleasant
They believe that conservatives have appointed radicals to the bench incorrectly. Therefore they believe they are reciprocating. It's always how it goes. A good example of this would be MSNBC being as partisan as it thinks Fox is. They ideologically escalate constantly.
The only word that comes to mind after watching this entire thing is “PAINFUL” How hard is it to say “I no longer stand by that statement or I fully stand by my statement.” These people constantly fail upward and have zero integrity.
@@nevaehstarrojas3918 That's not a how judicial nomination process works. You have to maintain, or at least a visibility of, impartiality divorced from moral sentiments, however widely echoed.
I’m so thankful there vetted like this , it’s a dangerous time in politics to be so careful vigilant and of sound mind is critical to our (real) democracy not there made up as we go along ideology of democracy.
@@kennethmeeker6369 I hate to say this but if the 2020 election taught me anything it's that we don't live in a constitutional republic, we live in the normal human condition that has prevailed since the dawn of civilization -- a fascistic oligarchy. This is the tried-and-true basic state of human political behavior. It's how we evolved.
@@davidhughes8357 why can't you lefty idiots condemn this woman for not being able to answer a basic question with only one correct answer of course it is wrong to racially discriminate against people.
"Is racial discriminarion wrong?" The only correct answer to this question is a *snap* YES. As soon as the candidate attempted to dodge the question I knew which side I stood on.
"Senator, again, I don't want to talk about my wokeness." Seems like people don't like their tweets and papers read back to them who plan on being judges.
@@jacksoncowsert6964 No wonder you have no followers and an empty profile. Welcome to you tube where you can never be sure whether the person to whom you are replying actually exists.
Because these nominees don’t love the constitution and truth in general, they cannot be plain spoken or give a straight answer because it’s not in their hearts.
Wow. I've never seen anyone be so evasive. Every response she gave began with the words, "Again...". Cruz, quite rightly, just moved on each time, knowing that she was not going to answer a single question. God help us from such hypocrites and liars.
Cruz should have asked if sending people of Japanese decent into internment camps during WW2 was the right or wrong thing to do. The answer would have been priceless.
Why is almost half her face hiding behind her hair? Id think it'd be important for Senators to see a complete facial expression when they're asking questions and vetting a candidate especially for such an important position. These candidates are so slimy, obfuscating when asked simple questions.
She stated that she just read it briefly, but she remembered clearly that she coauthored the article. What a pity that as a successful Asian American through hard working, she would rather support a system that discriminate those hard working people based on their ancestry.
That went poorly. Can she not have anticipated that line of questioning, knowing that Cruz would be one of her inquisitors on the committee? Especially in view of the fact that there is a highly publicized suit pending against their shared alma mater? Did she never have to study for finals at Harvard Law?
Socialists believe they are invulnerable to criticism. It's a self-inflicted blindspot they use to trample over the rights of others constantly. So this Socialists couldn't care less about what questions Cruze had. That's practically written on her face.
I have a lot of respect for Sen. Cruz and I can't understand how he remains so calm when people are thumbing their noses at him. He asks very direct and pointed questions that simply require a yes or no answer but Biden nominees just can't bring themselves to answer. Equivocation, in my mind, is a failure of character. This woman does not deserve to be on ANY bench as a judge.
A Harvard educated judge who can't say whether racial discrimination is wrong. That tells you everything you need to know about ANY judge who can't verbally state that it's dead wrong.
I imagine if I was a witness in her courtroom, those type of answers would not go over to well. Obviously the law does not apply to her. What a disgrace to the American judicial system.
Being a stylist...her hair hanging in her face covering her eye leads me to believe she's hiding. When you are in a professional environment be professional. I do not agree or disagree I'm just talking about hair. Have a great day no matter what your views!
Cruz only has so much time to vett her but it doesn't matter anyway Biden's nominee's will not answer a straight forward question just like Joe Biden does when he answers questions from the media.
Imagine being in a courtroom with her as a judge and “answering” questions like she is “isn’t” I’m thinking she would go crazy and hold you in contempt
Yeah, she could be a dangerous choice... I tried to put myself in her place and wondering why was shr so hesitant...a number of reasons 1) she is expecting the question on something she wrote about and normally she aimed to keep the stance she had (or would do everything to dodge around not to confirm nor deny it) 2) discrimination, for her it is not necessairily something wrong because it depends on which side you are when there is a discrimination 3) she is always being put in defensive mode and they are making it difficult for her to get out of that mode
