Legal Beagles 101

 

Have you ever seen the 1973 movie The Paper Chase? The movie is, among other things, about the rigors of law school. In the movie, the students live in fear of being interrogated in front of their Contract Law class by the legendary and demanding Professor Kingsfield. Below is a clip from the movie which shows this process in action (it’s about three minutes long).

Well, Professor Kingsfield has nothing on Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) when it comes to asking difficult legal questions. Kennedy sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the other day, that committee held a confirmation hearing for several Biden Administration judicial nominees to the Federal District Court. One of those nominees is Charnelle Bjelkengren, who has 21 years of legal experience, 12 years as an Assistant District Attorney, and nine years as judge serving on the highest trial court in the state of Washington. Senator Kennedy asked her what Article V and Article II of the U.S. Constitution did. These two questions stumped her. You can see the exchange below.

I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge, but I knew what Article II and Article V of the US Constitution do. Article II describes the Executive Branch of our Federal government, while Article V sets out the rules for amending the Constitution. In fact, as long as I’m at it, let me list the parts of the Constitution below in case of the highly unlikely event that you or I are ever nominated to a position in the Federal Judiciary we will at least be able to answer Senator Kennedy’s questions in our confirmation hearing.

The Constitution has the following parts:

  • Preamble – Describes the purpose of the document
  • Article I – Describes the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government
  • Article II – Describes the Executive Branch of the Federal Government
  • Article III – Describes the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government
  • Article IV – Describes the relationship between the several states and the Federal Government
  • Article V – Sets out the rules for amending the Constitution
  • Article VI – Not sure how to describe this – just some miscellaneous stuff plus the provision that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (I’m pretty sure I’d have missed this one if Kennedy had asked me this yesterday)
  • Article VII – Sets out the rules for ratifying the document
  • Closing Endorsement – This contains the signatures of those who chose to endorse the Constitution at the convention.
  • Amendments to the Constitution – The various amendments follow in order at the end of the document.

OK. Don’t worry. There won’t be a quiz on this.

Senator Kennedy also asked Ms. Bjelkengren what purposivism is for which she also had no answer. I had no idea what this is and so had to look it up (both the term and the spelling thereof). It turns out that purposivism or the purposive approach is a method of legal interpretation. It seems like something a federal judge should know, but I’ll leave it to those who know more about the subject to decide.

This is not the first time basic questions about the Constitution and the law by Kennedy have tripped up a judicial nominee. In 2017, one of President Trump’s judicial nominees, Matthew Peterson, withdrew his nomination after failing to answer similar questions by Senator Kennedy.

I dunno, but I think I kinda like Kennedy’s Law 101 questions for nominees. It’s certainly better than the usual pattern in which the Senators spend most of their question time showing how much they know about complicated legal issues and the nominees find ways to say absolutely nothing of consequence in response. Then again, if Kennedy wanted to really make the nominees sweat, he should ask the toughest question of all.

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Slight correction: she is much less qualified than any other nominee I can recall for a federal judgeship.

    The nominee served six years as a Washington State Administrative Law Judge, a role that typically involves hearings on narrow issues in, in her case, unemployment benefits cases. In her CV she reveals she’d made the initial decision on the appeal which was then reviewed by a senior ALJ  could be appealed further.

    She has only been on the Superior Court trial bench since 2019, when benighted Gov. Inslee appointed her, and she won her retention election thereafter.

    EDITED to correct ALJ and years as such.

    • #1
  2. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Slight correction: she is much less qualified than any other nominee I can recall for a federal judgeship.

    The nominee served as a Washington State Administrative Law Judge, a role that typically involves hearings on narrow issues in, in her case, unemployment benefits cases. In her CV she reveals she’d made the initial decision on the appeal which was then reviewed by a senior ALJ.

    She has only been on the Superior Court trial bench since 2019, when benighted Gov. Inslee appointed her, and she won her retention election thereafter.

    Thanks Fritz. I simply took her word for her experience as she described it in that clip.

    • #2
  3. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Slight correction: she is much less qualified than any other nominee I can recall for a federal judgeship.

    The nominee served as a Washington State Administrative Law Judge, a role that typically involves hearings on narrow issues in, in her case, unemployment benefits cases. In her CV she reveals she’d made the initial decision on the appeal which was then reviewed by a senior ALJ.

    She has only been on the Superior Court trial bench since 2019, when benighted Gov. Inslee appointed her, and she won her retention election thereafter.

    Thanks Fritz. I simply took her word for her experience as she described it in that clip.

    I came across a link to her submission to the committee’s questionnaire ahead of the hearings, and that is where I located the details.  IMO,  labeling an ALJ job as being an experienced “judge” is a slight exaggeration of her experience, a bit of puffery. (I have the entire 32-page submission downloaded but do not know how to link it.)

     

    • #3
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I entered law school in 1973, the same year The Paper Chase came out.  The University of Arizona is not on par with Harvard, but there were some similarities.  A great movie to watch.  For people who want to know more about the first year of Law School, I recommend “1 L,” by Scott Turow.

    • #4
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    She doesn’t have to know things. She has to be able to feel about things!

    • #5
  6. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Paper Chase a great movie. But the qualifications for the judiciary have been so lowered this one is no surprise.  No doubt the judge a demo activist so can’t wait to release Antifas, if they wind up in federal court, and to go after the gun owners. 

    • #6
  7. Chris Williamson Member
    Chris Williamson
    @ChrisWilliamson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I entered law school in 1973, the same year The Paper Chase came out. The University of Arizona is not on par with Harvard, but there were some similarities. A great movie to watch. For people who want to know more about the first year of Law School, I recommend “1 L,” by Scott Turow.

    I second the recommendation. Before going to law school in 1991 I read “1 L”, and it filled me with fear and dread, but at the same time it made me more determined to withstand the socratic method. Alas, I was no match for the professors’ questions.

    • #7
  8. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    I think Kennedy is my favorite Senator . . . not something I would have said years ago

     

    • #8
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I watched some of the clip featuring Senator Kennedy’s questions.  Find two things outrageous in the responses of the judicial candidates:

    They should review and and have knowledge of the Constitution in totality

    They should review previous questioning by committee members.

     

    • #9
  10. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I watched some of the clip featuring Senator Kennedy’s questions. Find two things outrageous in the responses of the judicial candidates:

    They should review and and have knowledge of the Constitution in totality

    They should review previous questioning by committee members.

     

    The Constitution is not very long. If you are a federal judicial nominee, one would think you would read it over. 

    • #10
  11. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    The current arrangement of passing time between the various Senators is not well suited to getting a decent understanding of a nominee’s capabilities.  What should happen is that they should select one Senator to do all of the questioning and rotate that through the members so that everyone gets their camera time, but the overall process is better run.

    • #11
  12. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Nice post.

    The federal judiciary at the District Court level is significantly lacking for the most part.  This person will fit in.

    I wish Kennedy had asked her views on injunctions being binding nationally.

    • #12
  13. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    tigerlily: This is not the first time basic questions about the Constitution and the law by Kennedy have tripped up a judicial nominee.

    Here is a good argument to defend Sen. Kennedy’s line of questioning about the identification numbers assigned to the parts of the Constitution.

    Definition 1: Let the definition of basic question about the Constitution include this inclusive condition: 

    If it is confidently known that a person who lacks the ability to answer a trivial question about the Constitution will also lack substantive knowledge about the Constitution, then the trivial question is a basic question about the Constitution, in spite of its triviality.

    Premise A: If there is a basic question about the Constitution that the candidate cannot answer, then the candidate is not qualified.

    Premise B: the Senate should test the candidate to see if the candidate is qualified.

    Conclusion: the Senate should ask questions about the identification numbers assigned to the parts of the Constitution, even though these are trivial.

     

    • #13
  14. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    I’m a bit ambivalent about ridiculing the nominee too much. I practiced law for forty years and I could not tell you off the top of my head what Article V of the U.S. Constitution was about. I could identify Article II as the executive branch, but that’s more because of my interest in politics than the fact that I’m a lawyer. 

    I practiced in specific areas in which the Constitution rarely came up, so I had no practical professional reason to know the parts of the Constitution. At the very end of my career a controversy bubbled up over the scope of authority of Administrative Law Judges in federal agencies that did affect my practice, but that was limited to some fine points of Articles II and III. But then I wasn’t vying to become a federal (or state) judge. 

    In a way the exchange with the nominee reminds me of how my late father (engineering professor) used to annoy Ph.D. candidates by asking them questions about undergraduate physics or basic trigonometry, rather than about the esoteric and narrow subject on which the candidate had written his doctoral thesis. 

    • #14
  15. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Chris Williamson (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I entered law school in 1973, the same year The Paper Chase came out. The University of Arizona is not on par with Harvard, but there were some similarities. A great movie to watch. For people who want to know more about the first year of Law School, I recommend “1 L,” by Scott Turow.

    I second the recommendation. Before going to law school in 1991 I read “1 L”, and it filled me with fear and dread, but at the same time it made me more determined to withstand the socratic method. Alas, I was no match for the professors’ questions.

    Me neither.

    • #15
  16. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I have my doubts that, in all of the law schools in the country, a “Kingsfield” exists today.

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I’m a bit ambivalent about ridiculing the nominee too much. I practiced law for forty years and I could not tell you off the top of my head what Article V of the U.S. Constitution was about. I could identify Article II as the executive branch, but that’s more because of my interest in politics than the fact that I’m a lawyer.

    I practiced in specific areas in which the Constitution rarely came up, so I had no practical professional reason to know the parts of the Constitution. At the very end of my career a controversy bubbled up over the scope of authority of Administrative Law Judges in federal agencies that did affect my practice, but that was limited to some fine points of Articles II and III. But then I wasn’t vying to become a federal (or state) judge.

    In a way the exchange with the nominee reminds me of how my late father (engineering professor) used to annoy Ph.D. candidates by asking them questions about undergraduate physics or basic trigonometry, rather than about the esoteric and narrow subject on which the candidate had written his doctoral thesis.

    But even without the relevant experience with the Constitution, if you were now nominated for a position in which the Constitution is your basis for making judgements, would you not review it in detail?

    • #17
  18. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I have my doubts that, in all of the law schools in the country, a “Kingsfield” exists today.

    Ben Shapiro tells the story of his first day at Harvard Law School.  They got them all together in a room, and the were addressed by the dean (Elena Kagan, if I remember).  She said to them that they’ve seen The Paper Chase, and are probably expecting to be like that.  She said not to worry, because it’s not like that anymore.  Getting in is the hard part, and if you do, you’ll graduate.

    • #18
  19. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I have my doubts that, in all of the law schools in the country, a “Kingsfield” exists today.

    Ben Shapiro tells the story of his first day at Harvard Law School. They got them all together in a room, and the were addressed by the dean (Elena Kagan, if I remember). She said to them that they’ve seen The Paper Chase, and are probably expecting to be like that. She said not to worry, because it’s not like that anymore. Getting in is the hard part, and if you do, you’ll graduate.

    Cue old man yells at cloud.

    Academic rigor, driven by fear if necessary, is a thing of the past.  And we see the signs daily.  

    • #19
  20. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    I think Kennedy is my favorite Senator . . . not something I would have said years ago

     

    A down to earth guy in the U. S. Senate. How long has it been?

    • #20
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    navyjag (View Comment):

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    I think Kennedy is my favorite Senator . . . not something I would have said years ago

     

    A down to earth guy in the U. S. Senate. How long has it been?

    He always seems to operate in a humorous mode but he is very sharp.

    • #21
  22. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    But even without the relevant experience with the Constitution, if you were now nominated for a position in which the Constitution is your basis for making judgements, would you not review it in detail?

    Dear Diary,

    If the justification for this class of questions is that in Question #13, then the intent of this action of reviewing in detail by the candidate would be to mislead the interviewers.

    But if in that case, it was also true that the candidate knew that the confident knowledge in the Definition of basic question about the Constitution is false (i.e., knowledge of Constitutional trivia is not evidence of substantive knowledge of it), then intended outcome of deceiving them would contribute to their goal of finding a good candidate, so the intent would be benevolent.

    If on the other hand, the premises and thus the conclusion of that justification is false, and the only motive of a Senator in asking  trivial questions about the Constitution is to deceive an ignorant citizenry, then the goal of the candidate’s action would be to mislead the citizens by pandering to their ignorance.

    It’s all ambiguous enough to dissuade any ethical person for applying for the job.

    [TAGS: Humor, Posts Tagged Humor Which Suggests They Would Never Be Recognized As Such]

    • #22
  23. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    What would have made that exchange even better is if, at the end of his questioning of her, Sen. Kennedy had said:”Ms Bjelkengren, during the upcoming break for lunch, I suggest that you call your mother and tell her that there’s serious doubt about your being confirmed.”

    Like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M6bUI1A9ho

    • #23
  24. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    What would have made that exchange even better is if, at the end of his questioning of her, Sen. Kennedy had said:”Ms Bjelkengren, during the upcoming break for lunch, I suggest that you call your mother and tell her that there’s serious doubt about your being confirmed.”

    Like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M6bUI1A9ho

    Or: “here’s my copy of Constitution. Ignore my scribbling. Why don’t you read it during the lunch break and we will have a pop quiz in the next session.”

    • #24
  25. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m a bit ambivalent about ridiculing the nominee too much. I practiced law for forty years and I could not tell you off the top of my head what Article V of the U.S. Constitution was about. I could identify Article II as the executive branch, but that’s more because of my interest in politics than the fact that I’m a lawyer. 

    Full disclosure before I note my partial dissent from this comment: as we watched this episode unfold on Tucker’s show last night, I was frustrated with myself that I could not instantly answer the question about Article V, although the answer to the question about Article II came readily to mind. My Lady, my law partner in my practicing days and still my life partner, of course immediately came up with both answers. I relate all that in view of my loathing of hypocrisy and determination not to seem hypocritical in criticizing this nominee for this shoddy performance. 

    First of all, while it may be a matter of personal taste, I did not see anything in Sen. Kennedy’s questioning which struck me as “ridiculing” the nominee. I thought his questions about the two provisions in the Founding Document of our Nation, which document this nominee will take an oath to defend when (sadly, not if) confirmed as a Federal District Judge were entirely appropriate. 

    Can it possibly be asking too much of such a nominee to put in the hard work of getting ready for the questions he or she must surely know will be coming their way? Surely, if they just wanted to do the barest minimum of work to get ready, the very least they should do is be prepared to answer questions about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At a minimum. In my not-at-all-humble opinion, this nominee is a disgrace to the Bench and Bar; having said that, in view of the despicable conduct of the judges on the District Court of the District of Columbia in the Jan. 6 cases, that bar has dropped so low it is almost invisible now, somewhat akin to our Southern Border.

    Finally, it pains me to realize and admit that not one word of the above or any of these comments or the excellent post itself will make one iota of difference as all the Democrats will herd together, like lemmings to the sea, and do whatever Schumer tells them to do and she will become a Federal District Judge. With Kentaji Jackson on the Supreme Court, one can only say: So what? 

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I entered law school in 1973, the same year The Paper Chase came out. The University of Arizona is not on par with Harvard, but there were some similarities. A great movie to watch. For people who want to know more about the first year of Law School, I recommend “1 L,” by Scott Turow.

    I entered in 1978. Not on the first day, but not too many days in I was thoroughly filleted by our Contracts professor over a question of whether a particular circumstance created an implied contract. It was the first serious Socratic questioning of anyone in our class, so that filleting became legend among my classmates that still comes up at class reunions. Eventually I got understood that he was a good professor, and in that episode was making sure we understood the level of scrutiny we and our arguments were going to get as we got into the legal profession and met opposing counsel and judges. 

    • #26
  27. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I entered law school in 1973, the same year The Paper Chase came out. The University of Arizona is not on par with Harvard, but there were some similarities. A great movie to watch. For people who want to know more about the first year of Law School, I recommend “1 L,” by Scott Turow.

    I entered in 1978. Not on the first day, but not too many days in I was thoroughly filleted by our Contracts professor over a question of whether a particular circumstance created an implied contract. It was the first serious Socratic questioning of anyone in our class, so that filleting became legend among my classmates that still comes up at class reunions. Eventually I got understood that he was a good professor, and in that episode was making sure we understood the level of scrutiny we and our arguments were going to get as we got into the legal profession and met opposing counsel and judges.

    Same here only 11 years before you.  State law school so no Harvard types but good professors who taught us the Socratic method real fast. 

    • #27
  28. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    tigerlily: Then again, if Kennedy wanted to really make the nominees sweat, he should ask the toughest question of all.

    That was such a defining moment for the Clown World regime. Watching it again today, after witnessing all the absurdity of the last couple of years, I can’t even (as the kids say).

    • #28
  29. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I watched some of the clip featuring Senator Kennedy’s questions. Find two things outrageous in the responses of the judicial candidates:

    They should review and and have knowledge of the Constitution in totality

    They should review previous questioning by committee members.

     

    The Constitution is not very long. If you are a federal judicial nominee, one would think you would read it over.

    Are there questions on the Constitution in the citizenship exam?  

    • #29
  30. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I have my doubts that, in all of the law schools in the country, a “Kingsfield” exists today.

    Ben Shapiro tells the story of his first day at Harvard Law School. They got them all together in a room, and the were addressed by the dean (Elena Kagan, if I remember). She said to them that they’ve seen The Paper Chase, and are probably expecting to be like that. She said not to worry, because it’s not like that anymore. Getting in is the hard part, and if you do, you’ll graduate.

    Good grief.

    The University of Illinois had an Introduction to Engineering class for first-semester freshman. The very first lecture, a professor came in and told us “Look to your left. Look to your right. One of the three of you will get a degree in Engineering from this University.”

    Good times.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.