According To This Judge's Own Writing, Asian Americans Who Want Meritocracy Are Sellouts

追加: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]I'm looking at what you wrote, your words.

[00:00:03]You describe, quote, "The Reagan presidency represented the pinnacle of the counteroffensive launched by the guardians of the status quo. In the face of institutional resistance, activist movements redirected their focus from liberation to survival."

[00:00:22]Do you believe there was a a threat to the survival of of Asian-American groups under President Reagan?

[00:00:32]Senator Cruz, again, that was a law a law review book review. I'm just asking if you agree with the sentiment. You wrote it.

[00:00:41]Senator, I don't recall Do you agree with it now?

[00:00:45]>> thinking. Do you agree with the sentiment now? Not what you were thinking then. I'm not asking your state of mind then. I'm saying, do you agree with the words you wrote?

[00:00:53]Senator, again, I don't know what our purpose and >> I don't I don't want your purpose then.

[00:00:58]Today, as you listen to the words you wrote, do you agree with them or do you think I was wrong?

[00:01:04]Senator, without the complete context, >> Okay, let's read a little bit more then.

[00:01:08]>> Okay. Wow.

[00:01:09]>> You talk Just wow. So, you just watched that clip. If you're anything like me, your jaw is on the floor right now.

[00:01:16]That's Senator Ted Cruz questioning Judge Ketanji during her confirmation hearing. And I genuinely don't think I've seen a Senate hearing moment like that in years. Here's what hit me straight away. Cruz comes in with actual receipts. Not talking points, not vague accusations. Real quotes from a real article that Judge Ketanji herself wrote. And the response? Deflection after deflection. I don't recall.

[00:01:39]Without full context. Canon 3.

[00:01:42]On repeat. Now look, I understand judicial nominees have to be careful.

[00:01:47]Canon 3 is real, and judges genuinely shouldn't prejudge matters that could come before their court. Fair enough.

[00:01:53]But there's a difference between declining to comment on a pending case and refusing to say whether racial discrimination is morally wrong. That's not a legal question. That's a human question. And Cotto wouldn't answer it straight. That moment alone tells you something. Then Cruz pulls out this law review article Cotto wrote as a 23-year-old law student. And instead of owning it, defending it, or clearly walking away from it, she just fogs the room. For a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, the American people deserve better than fog. We're watching the full video now and I'll break down every major moment because there is a lot to unpack. If you're new here, hit subscribe.

[00:02:32]>> [music] >> We cover confirmation hearings, constitutional debates, and political accountability right here on this channel. And if you think more people need to see this exchange, share the video. Let's get into it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to each of the nominees. Uh Judge Cotto, I would I want to start with you.

[00:02:50]Is racial discrimination wrong?

[00:02:57]Senator, our Constitution prohibits race discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race. Okay, let me ask you again. Is racial discrimination wrong?

[00:03:10]Senator, as a judge, I I I don't um deal with issues of morality or whether something >> So, you have no views on whether it's right or wrong?

[00:03:20]Senator, because that is an issue that is frequently litigated before the courts, pursuant to Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct, >> why does the Constitution prohibit racial discrimination?

[00:03:32]S- Senator, I I I think it's part of our Constitution and this nation's history of aiming for equal justice and uh treating people regardless of any protected class status equally and fairly. So, discriminating based on race violates, I think you just said, our Constitution's history of aiming for justice. Is that a fair characterization?

[00:04:04]Senator, our case law, uh if you're talking about race discrimination under the law, yes, pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, uh race discrimination under the law is prohibited.

[00:04:18]So, you and I are both graduates of the Harvard law law school. Uh we were there at the same time.

[00:04:23]Um I don't think we crossed path crossed path.

[00:04:25]>> not. Um as you know, our alma mater is currently before the Supreme Court for its long-standing practice of discriminating against Asian Americans. And many top universities across the country have vicious discrimination policies against Asian Americans.

[00:04:43]Uh they are reminiscent of the quotas against Jews that we saw these same schools impose in the 1950s.

[00:04:51]These schools believe that Asian Americans have been too successful academically.

[00:04:55]And that if they allow students to compete based on merit, they'd have too many Asian Americans.

[00:05:01]And accordingly, Harvard and Yale and a number of other the top schools in this country explicitly and brazenly discriminate against Asian Americans.

[00:05:10]Does that practice concern you?

[00:05:13]Senator Cruz, as you know, the Supreme Court recently granted cert in the case to which I think you're referring.

[00:05:20]>> Yes. And therefore, pursuant again to Canon 3, I am >> Okay, so you're going to decline to comment, so let's not talk about that case, but let's talk about what you've written. You know, I have to say I was astonished.

[00:05:31]Senator Grassley asked you about this article you wrote in law school.

[00:05:35]Um and your response was, "Well, gosh, I I haven't read that."

[00:05:38]Um in my experience, when people are nominated to be a judge, they do some preparation.

[00:05:44]Um did you not reread it in preparation or did the Biden team tell you don't read it cuz you don't want to answer questions about it?

[00:05:53]Senator, I read it but again the question that Senator Grassley >> Okay, good. So you read it so let's talk about it.

[00:06:00]I've read it sitting here.

[00:06:03]And I find it stunning.

[00:06:05]Look, there is a pattern of this administration nominating political activists and radicals to the bench and they've done it for a year.

[00:06:14]And it's highly concerning. So I'm looking at what you wrote, your words.

[00:06:18]You describe quote the Reagan presidency represented the pinnacle of the counteroffensive launched by the guardians of the status quo in the face of institutional resistance activist movements redirected their focus from liberation to survival.

[00:06:37]Do you believe there was a a threat to the survival of of Asian American groups under President Reagan?

[00:06:47]Senator Cruz, again that was a law a law review book review. I'm just asking if you agree with the statement. You wrote it.

[00:06:56]Senator I don't recall. Do you agree with it now?

[00:07:01]>> thinking >> Do you agree with the statement now? Not what you were thinking then. I'm not asking your state of mind then. I'm saying do you agree with the words you wrote?

[00:07:09]Senator again, I don't know what our purpose and >> I don't I don't want your purpose then.

[00:07:13]Today as you listen to the words you wrote do you agree with them or do you think I was wrong?

[00:07:19]Senator without the complete context >> Okay, let's read a little bit more then.

[00:07:24]You talk about the neo-conservative view. Here's what you define an Asian neo-conservative as someone with an opposition to racism so that's good.

[00:07:34]But a commitment to ending affirmative actions action programs.

[00:07:39]And you write quote the neo-conservatives narrow vision of success currently threatens to impose divisions within the Asian American community and among different ethnic groups."

[00:07:48]Emphasizing personal achievement and success as measured by the status quo, the Asian American neo-conservative fails to acknowledge the shared history of oppression and then ties our individual success to the survival and liberation of all oppressed peoples.

[00:08:02]Judge Ketanji As I read this, what you're saying, and if you will permit me to use a more common uh vernacular, you're saying that to be sufficiently woke, an Asian American must support policies that discriminate against Asian Americans.

[00:08:19]I I got to tell you that that doesn't make sense.

[00:08:22]Is my reading of what you wrote incorrect?

[00:08:27]Senator Cruz, again, we are talking about something that I wrote when I think I was a 23-year-old law student.

[00:08:34]>> I'm not asking what you thought then.

[00:08:36]I'm saying today, as you sit here, as the Senate is considering you for a lifetime appointment as a judge, do you agree with what you wrote that Asian Americans to be sufficiently liberated must support discrimination against Asian Americans?

[00:08:52]Senator, without the complete context of that particular quote that you've excised, >> I read it to you.

[00:08:58]>> I cannot give you whether my opinion today, whether or not I agree with what I said as a 23-year-old law student.

[00:09:08]I would have to review the entirety But you you said you did review it before this hearing, right?

[00:09:13]Senator, I reviewed I reviewed it briefly.

[00:09:19]This was quite some time ago, over 25 years ago.

[00:09:22]>> short article, about six pages. I co-wrote it with a classmate of mine.

[00:09:29]Senator, there's time has expired.

[00:09:30]Senator Rona.

[00:09:31]All right. We've seen the whole thing.

[00:09:34]Let's talk. Go back to the very beginning of that exchange because I think people might have glossed over it.

[00:09:39]Cruz asks Kudo one of the simplest moral questions you can ask, is racial discrimination wrong? Not, how would you rule on this case? Just is it wrong? And Kudo's answer is basically, I don't deal in morality. That is a deeply unsatisfying answer from someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. Judges interpret law, yes, but the entire foundation of anti-discrimination law, the reason the 14th Amendment exists, the reason the Civil Rights Act exists, is a moral conviction that racial discrimination is wrong. You can acknowledge that without prejudging a single case. Refusing to do so isn't judicial restraint. It's evasion. Cruz then moves to the Harvard admissions case, and here the Canon 3 limitation is actually fair. The Supreme Court had already taken that case up, and it would genuinely be inappropriate for a nominee to opine on it. Cruz even acknowledges it and immediately pivots to the article. That's where things get really interesting. The article Cruz quotes from is something Kudo co-wrote as a Harvard Law student. He reads a passage describing the Reagan presidency as the pinnacle of a counteroffensive launched by guardians of the status quo.

[00:10:50]That is not neutral academic writing.

[00:10:52]That is ideological language, the language of activism, not scholarship.

[00:10:56]Cruz is right to press on it. But the most striking part is what Kudo wrote about Asian-American neoconservatives.

[00:11:03]The article argues that Asian-Americans who oppose affirmative action, who believe in merit-based admissions, are failing their community. That they're not sufficiently tied to the liberation of all oppressed peoples. Cruz's translation is blunt, but accurate. By Kudo's standard, to be truly liberated, an Asian-American must support policies that actively discriminate against Asian-Americans. Read that again. If you want your child admitted to university based on grades and test scores rather than race. This article says you are betraying your community. That is a remarkable position. And it deserves a direct answer, not decades later in an interview, but right there in that hearing room with a lifetime appointment on the table. What does Cotto say? I can't give you my opinion today without the complete context of that quote. But Cruz had just read additional context moments before. And Cotto had already confirmed she reread the article before the hearing. She walked into that room having reviewed a six-page document she co-authored and still couldn't tell the Senate whether she agrees with it today.

[00:12:06]That's not modesty. That's strategic ambiguity. To be fair, people grow. A 23-year-old's views aren't always the views of a nominee decades later. And Cruz even acknowledges the article is 25 years old. But the burden isn't on Cruz to prove she still believes it. The burden is on Cotto to tell the American people where she stands now. I wrote that as a student, I've evolved. Here's what I believe today.

[00:12:31]That's a complete answer. She didn't give it. What Cruz did here was force a moment of accountability. He came prepared, stayed specific, stayed focused, and never misrepresented the article. He let the words speak for themselves. The contrast between the precision of his questions and the vagueness of the answers really does say it all. Federal judges serve for life.

[00:12:52]They shape the legal landscape for generations. The Senate's job is to scrutinize nominees rigorously. And on that count, this exchange is exactly what confirmation hearings are supposed to look like. Whether you agree with Cruz politically or not, he did his homework, asked the hard questions, and didn't let deflection slide. That's what oversight looks like. Drop your thoughts in the comments. I want to know what you made of Cotto's responses. And if this kind of breakdown is useful to you, subscribe for more. See you in the next one.