PISSED-OFF Sen. Kennedy FURIOUSLY DESTROYS WOKE ARROGANT Judge Nominee Who Tried So Hard To LIE

[00:00:00]them as a person.

[00:00:02]>> I made them in my role as an advocate.

[00:00:04]>> Do you mean them as a person? I'm not asking you in your role as an advocate.

[00:00:07]Do you believe that if you're against white supremacy, you have to be against voter ID laws?

[00:00:14]>> Senator, in my role as an advocate, I have >> I'm not asking you about this. It wasn't the case.

[00:00:20]>> Did two Biden judicial nominees just admit they didn't really mean the most controversial things they've ever said?

[00:00:27]One compared voter ID laws to white supremacy. Another claimed police kill unarmed black men every single day. Then Senator Kennedy asked one simple question. Do you actually believe that?

[00:00:42]What happened next was a masterclass in political evasions. And trust me, Kennedy wasn't letting them escape.

[00:00:49]Subscribe because this gets uncomfortable fast. Um, Miss Merrell, I'm looking at a article you wrote in the breach in 2017.

[00:01:06]You said, I'm going to quote, "It's inconsistent to denounce white supremacy but not repudiate voter ID laws."

[00:01:16]>> Did you say that?

[00:01:18]>> Thank you for the question, Senator.

[00:01:19]>> You're welcome. I believe that was an interview I gave in the days after Charlottesville and I and I believe those statements were in ter I was it was in my role as an advocate regarding my work uh representing voters in Alabama challenging >> So you didn't mean them as a person.

[00:01:37]>> I made them in my role as an advocate.

[00:01:39]>> Do you mean them as a person? I'm not asking you in your role as an advocate.

[00:01:43]Do you believe that if you're against white supremacy, you have to be against voter ID laws? Senator, in my role as an advocate, I have >> I'm not asking you about this. It wasn't the case. I'm asking you what you believe. And I don't appreciate you dodging my question. Now, this is this is a serious position you've been nominated for. Do you believe that someone who is against white supremacy also has to be against voter ID laws?

[00:02:13]>> Senator, no. The Supreme Court has held that photo ID >> believe that I believe that the Supreme Court has held that >> What do you believe personally?

[00:02:22]>> I believe that photo ID laws have been held to be constitutional.

[00:02:26]>> Do you think voter ID laws are appropriate or inappropriate?

[00:02:30]>> I believe those are are questions that uh election officials.

[00:02:35]>> Do you believe that voter ID laws are appropriate or inappropriate?

[00:02:39]>> I believe that photo ID laws have been held to be constitutional. I believe there are cases in which they >> What do you believe?

[00:02:45]>> I believe there are cases in which they are.

[00:02:48]>> What do you believe?

[00:02:49]>> I also believe there are cases which >> they can >> What do you believe? Do you >> Senator, let her answer, please.

[00:02:55]>> I'm trying to I'm trying to We both know what's going on. Mr. Chairman, >> let her complete the >> Why? Well, let me do my own question.

[00:03:01]Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help.

[00:03:04]Professor, um, do you believe that voter ID's laws are appropriate or not? I believe there are circumstances where photo ID laws can be constitutionally implemented and I believe that the Supreme Court has also held that there are circumstances when they would not be constitutionally permitted.

[00:03:23]>> Okay. All right. There's uh >> the shri saying your name right?

[00:03:37]>> It is Chri.

[00:03:39]Thank you for correcting me.

[00:03:40]>> Thank you.

[00:03:44]>> Uh in 2015, you were on a panel at Princeton University.

[00:03:51]Um you said that uh the killing of unarmed black men by police happens every day in America.

[00:04:02]Did you say that, >> Senator? I don't recall a statement but it is something I may have said in that context.

[00:04:09]>> You you think it happens every single day.

[00:04:12]>> Senator I believe in that in that statement I was making a comment in my role as an advocate and I was engaging in rhetorical advocacy which >> but do you believe that police officers kill unarmed black men every day in America?

[00:04:27]>> Senator, I believe the killing of unarmed citizens by law enforcement is tragic. And I believe in that incident >> I think it's tragic, too. But do you believe, this is a really simple question, counselor, do you believe that cops kill unarmed black men in America every single day? You said it at Princeton, >> Senator, I said it in my role as an advocate.

[00:04:47]>> Oh, okay. You didn't mean it, >> Senator. I said it in my role as an advocate to make a rhetorical point.

[00:04:54]>> So So when you say something that's incorrect, it's okay to excuse it by saying, "Oh, I was being an advocate."

[00:05:00]What do you believe? Do you personally believe that cops kill unarmed black men every single day in America?

[00:05:07]>> Senator, I believe law enforcement have an important and challenging job in this country.

[00:05:11]>> That's not what you said, though.

[00:05:12]Councilman >> Senator, I say before you here today that I do believe law enforcement have a difficult and challenging job and I also understand the difference.

[00:05:20]>> I just think that's an extraordinary statement to make with no data to back up.

[00:05:26]No, none whatsoever.

[00:05:28]There's no basis for you saying that.

[00:05:30]and you knew it then and you know it now. How can one possibly believe that you're going to be unbiased on the federal bench?

[00:05:39]>> Senator, I believe my record shows that I have worked collaboratively with law enforcement in Boston, Chicago, Mississippi, and Milwaukee to solve complex problems to promote constitutional, effective, and safe.

[00:05:50]>> Your record shows that you believe cops are guilty until proven innocent.

[00:05:56]Your record shows that if a cop I if if if a cop shoots a criminal, it's the cop's fault. And if a criminal shoots a cop, it's the gun's fault.

[00:06:09]I've read your record. I've read your record, Miss Merl, and I don't appreciate you not answering the question straight up. I would respect you a lot more if you just tell us what you believe and not try to hide it. You know, one thing that drives people crazy about Washington is when politicians or nominees say something outrageous, get called on it later, and suddenly claim, "Well, I was speaking as an advocate."

[00:06:34]Hm. That's exactly what happened in this Senate hearing. Senator John Kennedy sat across from two Biden judicial nominees who had made some very strong public statements in the past, and instead of giving a speech, Kennedy decided to do something much simpler. He asked them whether they actually believed what they had said. First up was nominee Nancy Abudu Merrill. Kennedy pulled out a statement she made after Charlottesville where she argued that it's inconsistent to oppose white supremacy while supporting voter ID laws. Now, whether you agree or disagree with voter ID laws isn't even the point here. Kennedy's question was straightforward. Do you personally believe that if someone opposes white supremacy, they must also oppose voter ID laws? Simple question.

[00:07:22]But instead of a direct answer, Merryill kept saying she made those comments in her role as an advocate. Kennedy wasn't buying it. He basically said, "I'm not asking what you argued as a lawyer. I'm asking what you believe." And that's where things got awkward. Every time he asked whether voter ID laws were appropriate or inappropriate, the answer drifted back toward court cases, constitutional standards, and legal qualifications, Kennedy kept bringing it right back. What do you believe? And honestly, that's the question many Americans watching were probably asking, too. Because if you're about to serve on the federal bench for life, people naturally want to know where you stand.

[00:08:06]Then came the second nominee, and wow, this exchange got even intense. Kennedy quoted a statement she made during a Princeton panel discussion. According to the quote, she said that police kill unarmed black men every single day in America. Now, that's a huge claim. So, Kennedy asked her directly, "Do you believe that?" Again, the response sounded familiar. She explained she was speaking in her role as an advocate and making a rhetorical point. Kennedy immediately jumped on that explanation.

[00:08:40]His reaction was basically, "Hold on. If a statement isn't true, can you just excuse it later by saying you were advocating?" Ouch. Then he repeated the question, "Do you personally believe police kill unarmed black men every single day in America?" Instead of answering yes or no, the discussion shifted towards how difficult law enforcement jobs are and the broader challenges officers face. Kennedy wasn't satisfied. He pointed out that those weren't the words she used originally.

[00:09:10]And here's where the hearing became less about those specific statements and more about credibility. Because Kennedy's argument wasn't simply that he disagreed with them. His argument was that someone seeking a lifetime judicial appointment should be willing to clearly explain what they actually believe. Not what they argued in a courtroom, not what they said as an activist, not what they meant rhetorically, but what they genuinely believe. At one point, Kennedy delivered the line that probably became the headline of the hearing. He said he would respect the nominees more if they simply told the committee what they believed instead of trying to hide behind advocacy. Whe that's the moment that changed the entire hearing because suddenly the debate wasn't about voter ID laws. It wasn't about policing. It wasn't even about politics. It became about trust. Can Americans trust that judges will separate activism from impartial decision-making? Or do past statements reveal how they'll approach cases from the bench? Now, both nominees were ultimately confirmed and received lifetime appointments. So Kennedy didn't stop the nominations, but he did force a conversation that many people believe is worth having. When someone seeks one of the most powerful positions in the legal system, should Americans be allowed to know what they truly believe? That's the question Kennedy put on the table. And judging by the reaction to this hearing, a lot of people are still debating the answer. If you enjoyed this breakdown, don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. Because sometimes the most revealing moments in Washington aren't the speeches, they're the questions nobody wants to