excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 22,765
- 44,343
- 2,290
More of the "diversity" crap the left is saddling us with. Hopefully she is now a goner.
This is about as discrediting a moment as I think I have ever seen in a judicial confirmation hearing: a district court nominee asked about a false statement she made at a public event, and excusing it by saying — repeating three times — that when she said it, she was speaking “in my role as an advocate.” This is not simply a matter of a nominee who — like most people — has occasionally been sloppy or gotten facts wrong in the past. It is about embracing the idea that advocates do not need to be bound by the facts and the truth.
For Democrats, Nusrat Choudhury represents diversity: When Chuck Schumer proposed her as a district judge in the Brooklyn-based Eastern District of New York, he tweeted that she would be “the 1st Bangladeshi American and the 2nd Muslim American to serve as a federal judge.” Biden’s press release on the announcement of the nomination of Choudhury and seven others to the bench in January touted how those choices “continue to fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that the nation’s courts reflect the diversity that is one of our greatest assets as a country.” Before even giving their names or professional qualifications, the White House release emphasized that “For example, this slate includes”:
Press coverage was to a similar effect. Schumer and Biden were also trying to shore up their left flank by touting the progressivism of Choudhury and others nominated along with her. Maybe they should have investigated instead whether she thinks it is standard practice for advocates to lie for the cause.
There is little question of Choudhury’s ideological loyalties: She has worked her entire career for the ACLU in New York and now Illinois (where she serves as legal director), much of that for the ACLU’s “Racial Justice Program” from 2008 to 2009 and 2013–18. There is no bar on putting ideological activists on the bench, but the Senate ought to have some standards to ensure that they can be fair jurists — especially district judges. Federal trial judges make decisions alone and have all manner of unreviewable powers to make life miserable for criminal defendants, crime victims, civil litigants, witnesses, jurors, and lawyers. They can lean on cases to settle, be dismissed, or end in guilty pleas. They can, on their own initiative, issue nationwide injunctions. Judges in the Eastern District, handling one of the busiest criminal dockets in the country (covering all of Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island, and including the immigration and drug-trafficking dockets arising out of John F. Kennedy International Airport), have a particular need to be judicious in handling criminal cases.
Just about the worst thing of all is a judge who thinks it is acceptable to be dishonest. After all, judges hear from advocates all day long. A big part of their job is demanding that advocates tell them the truth, so that their rulings reflect an honest process to get the facts and the law right. A judge who won’t do that will never give anyone a fair day in court.
As questioning by Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) of Choudhury during Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed, Choudhury lacks the honesty to serve as a federal judge. Here is the full exchange, starting at 2:42:
...
www.nationalreview.com
This is about as discrediting a moment as I think I have ever seen in a judicial confirmation hearing: a district court nominee asked about a false statement she made at a public event, and excusing it by saying — repeating three times — that when she said it, she was speaking “in my role as an advocate.” This is not simply a matter of a nominee who — like most people — has occasionally been sloppy or gotten facts wrong in the past. It is about embracing the idea that advocates do not need to be bound by the facts and the truth.
For Democrats, Nusrat Choudhury represents diversity: When Chuck Schumer proposed her as a district judge in the Brooklyn-based Eastern District of New York, he tweeted that she would be “the 1st Bangladeshi American and the 2nd Muslim American to serve as a federal judge.” Biden’s press release on the announcement of the nomination of Choudhury and seven others to the bench in January touted how those choices “continue to fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that the nation’s courts reflect the diversity that is one of our greatest assets as a country.” Before even giving their names or professional qualifications, the White House release emphasized that “For example, this slate includes”:
- A nominee who would be the first Bangladeshi-American, the first Muslim-American woman, and only the second Muslim-American person to serve as a federal judge.
- A nominee who would be the first African-American woman—and the first woman of color—ever to serve on the Third Circuit.
- A nominee who would be the first Latina ever to serve on the Eastern District of California and the second Hispanic judge actively serving on that court.
- A nominee who immigrated from Taiwan as a child and would be the second Asian-American person to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Colorado—the first being President Biden’s nominee, Judge Regina Rodriguez, who was confirmed in June 2021.
Press coverage was to a similar effect. Schumer and Biden were also trying to shore up their left flank by touting the progressivism of Choudhury and others nominated along with her. Maybe they should have investigated instead whether she thinks it is standard practice for advocates to lie for the cause.
There is little question of Choudhury’s ideological loyalties: She has worked her entire career for the ACLU in New York and now Illinois (where she serves as legal director), much of that for the ACLU’s “Racial Justice Program” from 2008 to 2009 and 2013–18. There is no bar on putting ideological activists on the bench, but the Senate ought to have some standards to ensure that they can be fair jurists — especially district judges. Federal trial judges make decisions alone and have all manner of unreviewable powers to make life miserable for criminal defendants, crime victims, civil litigants, witnesses, jurors, and lawyers. They can lean on cases to settle, be dismissed, or end in guilty pleas. They can, on their own initiative, issue nationwide injunctions. Judges in the Eastern District, handling one of the busiest criminal dockets in the country (covering all of Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island, and including the immigration and drug-trafficking dockets arising out of John F. Kennedy International Airport), have a particular need to be judicious in handling criminal cases.
Just about the worst thing of all is a judge who thinks it is acceptable to be dishonest. After all, judges hear from advocates all day long. A big part of their job is demanding that advocates tell them the truth, so that their rulings reflect an honest process to get the facts and the law right. A judge who won’t do that will never give anyone a fair day in court.
As questioning by Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) of Choudhury during Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed, Choudhury lacks the honesty to serve as a federal judge. Here is the full exchange, starting at 2:42:
...
Watch Judicial Nominee Nusrat Choudhury Self-Destruct Under Questioning by Senator John Kennedy | National Review
When asked about a false statement she made at a public event, the district court nominee excused it by saying she was speaking ‘in my role as an advocate.’
www.nationalreview.com
