My bet is that Kennedy himself thought he was asking about the Amendments, not realizing they are not Articles...
That was my first thought, as well. Which makes his questioning even more ridiculous and why I would want Kennedy to answer the questions he asked. Edit: Thinking a bit more on this, @taosjohn, I don't think so. I am going to give Kennedy a bit more credit and think he was being an asshole and that he is not just a moron (for a very experienced lawyer and legislator) who does not the difference between an Article and and Amendment. I think he was laying a trap and expected the conversation to go like this: Q: "Do you know what is in Article V of the Constitution?" A: "That would be the right to a grand jury, right against double jeopardy and a right against self incrimination." Q: "No, that is AMENDMENT V to the Constitution. I asked about Article V. Do you know what Article V states?" A: "Article V is not coming to mind at the moment" Q: "How about Article II?” A: “Neither is Article II” Q: "don’t they teach the Constitution in law school anymore?" Frankly, even under this scenario, the Article II question was pretty much a gimme. Despite what I wrote immediately above, the First three Articles to the Constitution setting up the Legislative (I), Executive (II) and Judicial (III) branches of government should be pretty much common knowledge.
Again, have you studied/taught Constructional law? If so, I would be happy to discuss whether the articles of the Constitution are important in law or not. If not, well, I could educate you on the subject, but I wonder if it would have much of an effect upon you. Almost certainly 100%. They are probably two of the most cited Amendments to the Constitution in general parlance (the other being the first amendment). Please note, Amendment V is frequently cited in federal criminal court cases, for obvious reasons. Double Jeopardy and right against Self-Incrimination being frequent issues at the trial and, especially, the appellate level. Amendment II is not that common, outside the few high profile cases. You need to stop this. Your ignorance on this topic is really showing.
if I had the inclination (and I don’t) it probably wouldn’t take me too long to find posts of you laughing at stupid stuff done by the village dog catcher to the POTUS as long as they were Republicans but you cannot bring yourself to say one cross word about a border line ignorant Judge because she was nominated by a Dem POTUS instead you attack Sen Kennedy and me you are a lost cause you are exactly what you accuse conservatives of you are exactly what you despise in the ‘other’ side
Senator Kennedy is one of the fakest dudes in Congress. A highly educated Rhodes Scholar who pretends to be a toothpick-chewing hayseed dipshit so he can get re-elected. This was the nominee's way of refusing to engage with Senator Leghorn. There's no point trying to answer his questions - he's just going to try to score points for the folks back home, and you should see how he treated Ketanji Brown Jackson when she took his questions seriously - so she just refused to take the bait. Good for her! It's not like a good answer would change how the Senator would vote on her confirmation.
This comment does not make sense. You keep making this partisan. I have never seen a village dog catcher in my life. Now, I will laugh at stupid stuff done by those who do stupid stuff. If it just so happens, that over the past 15 years or so, those doing "stupid stuff" are, almost exclusively, Republicans is not my fault. Why don't you "have the inclination" to actually answer the questions when you are asked them, whether by me or the half dozen or so BigSoccer posters who still bother to engage with you anymore? Actually, I said it was pretty pathetic that she did not have a response. What was way MORE pathetic, however, was the line of questioning, as I have explained in detail. I didn't "attack" you, I asked you a series of legitimate questions to receive a response and, perhaps, enter into a conversation. As you have always done, you deflect and do not answer the question. I also did not "attack" Kennedy. Oh, okay, he is not, literally, a human turd. But he is an odious human being with a ridiculous accent and an Oxford education. For the entirety of his time in the Senate, he has attempted to attack people he is questioning with completely irrelevant questions designed only to embarrass the person he is questioning and NOT to elicit a thoughtful response. For the hundredth time, this is not partisan. Why do you keep doing this? I brought up legitimate lines of inquiry. Something neither you nor Senator Kennedy seem capable of doing.
My thinking is that the exchange was stimulated by this one from the Richard Barnett trial in which he defended his Jan 6th behavior as motivated by his love for the Constitution: "Prosecutor: “you love the constitution?” Barnett: “love it!” Prosecutor”1st amendment” Bigo: yes Prosecutor: “2nd amendment” Bigo: yes Prosecutor: “love the 3rd amendment?” Bigo: yes Prosecutor: “what’s the 3rd amendment?” Bigo…. “I don’t know”" That was pretty recently in the news, and I suspect Kennedy of trying to develop a "gotcha" to claim both sides are ignorant so his guy was a victim of selective enforcement...
I may be wrong, but I think you are initiating the Kissinger strategy of declaring victory. In which case I entreat you to remember the second part and employ it as well. "Declare victory and withdraw."
I'm going to disagree with this. This isn't an interview. It's a procedure which is necessary but can mess up your career if you screw it up, so you need to have a plan to get through it with the least amount of engagement possible. Her plan going in was to not engage the trolls. (A lesson we could all learn from - she didn't have a choice, but we do, and yet here we are in this thread...) She is aware that there's no magic words she can say that are going to suddenly get Republicans to support her nomination. They're going to ask questions, and she's going to answer them, and they're going to vote no, regardless of her answers. She's not under the delusion that if she just answers the questions earnestly enough, she can win them over. Senator Cowflop has one mission, and that is to try to make her look stupid and screw up, so she answered his question with "it's not coming to mind". It's not a lie (*) - she's under oath so she's not going to lie and say "I don't know". She could look it up if she really needed to know it. But she doesn't want to engage the troll by helping him down the path he wants to go down, so she prepared the answer of "it's not coming to mind" to disengage the troll's line of questioning. A part of me wants to go look up how Senator Huffinglue voted on the woefully unqualified judicial nominees that Trump put forward. Judge Cannon, the one who inserted herself into Trump's classified documents case when she had no jurisdiction, probably got a bunch of softball questions from Senator Porkbelly who then voted to appoint her to a lifetime judgeship despite her lack of qualifications and obvious partisanship. But I don't hate myself enough to go dig up the Senate Judiciary Committee's questioning from five or six years ago to confirm what I already know. (*) Republican nominees, of course, lie all the time - every Supreme Court justice nominee was asked point blank if they respected precedent and they all said yes, and they all voted the opposite last year when the Dobbs decision came up. But Democratic nominees have more self-respect than Republican nominees do, so they don't lie in their nomination hearings.
They're usually called "Animal Control" these days. It's not an elective office where I live, and hasn't been for a whole 8 years, thanks to a referendum. In the past few years, they've been in my neighborhood dealing with skunks, racoons, and just last week, a loose dog with a really bad disposition. Only time I can think that they needed to deal with a dog.
Because your questions are an attempt to deflect from the topic. It does not matter what I know or don't know about Article II or V. The topic on hand is does a nominee for the post of US District Judge know about about Article II or V Again, I did not deflect. I found your questions to be useless and an attempt to change the topic away from the Biden nominated Judge who is ignorant of the US Constitution
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ominee-basic-questions-constitution-rcna67703 “Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning. “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied. “How about Article II?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either. how ever much you want to talk yourself into believing that these questions were inappropriate they were not, they were the equivalent of asking a math major what 2x2 is and as regards to precedent... yes they answered honestly for who they were at the time you must know that once a Supreme Court Judge, precedent is no longer such a binding force
No, I was providing context to the line of inquiry Kennedy appears to be making. I asked YOU the questions as you were apparently trying to make some sort of comment about the quality and/knowledge base of the candidate. The questions he was asking were not relevant and, by posting this nonsense video, you were implying they were.
It is clear that you have no idea what is contained in a Constitutional Law Course. You have no idea what Constitutional questions arise in front of judges. And this despite the fact that I wrote at length about this just a few posts prior to your latest nonsense. You are incredibly ignorant if you think asking what Article V of the Constitution is about is even REMOTELY close to asking a math major about 2x2. What a ridiculous comparison.
So, you are for literalism? You prefer original meaning? Of course, you do. Because he did say what you wanted him to say, and then he brought context. As a lawyer would. As something who is analyzing what is occurring. And, yes, I agree with @xtomx and @rslfanboy that she should have known. But she is not up for a SCOTUS, or even appeals. She is up for district, and I'm sure she has a better understanding of the law than Ms. Cannon of Florida does. As did Mr. Kennedy, you don't bother to know/say her name. Ms. Bjelkengren is a lawyer, hopefully soon to be judge. She will have to know case law. I'm not sure knowing which article of the constitution as it pertains to what it says, matters for case law. How often does it come up court that it is necessary for a Judge to know which Article of the US Constitution pertains to what?
Murf is 100% correct Senator's whole point is to get a viral video that can be posted out of context by the semi-fascists all over the internet. There is no point giving them words. It's why KBJ didn't bother with the "define a woman" question - it's better not to answer and give that video, that to try to answer and give them content for their propaganda videos
It's given away by such an absurd line of questioning pitched for the viewer, and nothing to do with the Senator's actual role in screening candidates