The candidate is trying so hard to sound so intelligent, but Kennedy sees through the BS

I would vote for Kennedy for president. It would be 4 years of excitement.

Another affirmative action hire

Another participating trophy hire,,completely ignorant

Clear results of lowering standards....Affirmitive action and the DEI BS

Where are they finding these sniveling backhanded creepy, nominees? Who are these people?

That "nominee" is a 🤡

This is what happen when you pick race over intelligence.

Wonder why the justice system is a mess?

The world is so sick of DEI hires. Why can’t these people do a little book work before showing up?

Stunning incompetence

How do these people get out of law school?

Now........Tell me Kennedy isn't the best! He's such a brilliant mind IMHO.

He said, "I'm not qualified," without saying, "I'm not qualified."

maybe a federal judge nominee should actually know some federal law, and not just get selected based on "other important factors"...

Absolutely disgusting

It is better to say nothing and let them think you're a fool, than to say something and prove them right.

The words "my understanding" are unacceptable. Mr. Kidd should know the correct answers to these fairly simple questions. I would hate to have him adjudicating my case.

When you don't qualify to the job....

this DEI nonsense is getting way out of hand ...... vote Trump 👍

Wow! He's a judge? Scary!

'''Senator do you see that I am black''''???

Reminder these people may sit in judgment of you one day. They are so incompetent and can't answer basic questions. That is scary.

He has an appalling lack of knowledge of the Constitution and federal law for a judge.

The density is advanced in this one

Block them all . DEI will be canceled on November 5th 2024

If I were that guy, I would excuse myself and find another line of work.

The words you are looking for clown is "I don't know." Simple as that.

Senator Kennedy, You can not dumb yourself down enough to think like this individual !! You have to think box checking for these nominees !

You cant fix ignorance especially if it was taught as fact.

That was so cringe

What a dumb candidate

Did this guy go to law school? He should just tell the truth straight forward. "I don't know".

So DEI hires argue they will rely on more qualified hires for what they don't know

This man shows up knowing nothing. Do not confirm this judge.

This is painful to watch !

The candidate came across as just dumb.

All these DEI hires sound exactly the same when responding.

he flunked the test

I’m reading all the liberal pearl clutching and crocodile tears about the unfair and hard questions Kennedy asked this poor guy. That the questions were too hard for him to understand and that there was no way he can answer them. I’m guessing the questions they would be happy with is “What’s your favorite color?” “Do you like pizza?” “ Do you like Puppies or Kittens.”

Clueless

DEI on full display

Wow !!!!!🤦🏾‍♂️

Where do they get these nominees from? Geez!

Omg painful wtf

I cant stand the way this dude talks,and looks.

Chillingly scary simply because I find this everywhere no matter where I do. FJB

did this guy ever argue a case?

I❤Kennedy ❤

DEI = Didn’t Earn It

Let me guess Howard Law schhol raked 175 out of 175 where our VP graduated from.

no preparation before he came ,none

The tragic part is most of these people.are getting put in office. We are so done.

Kennedy is one of the VERY few in congress that ACTUALLY care about us citizens and truly wants to make a difference. What a true patriot in every sense of the word

This is simply stupid 🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

This man is an embarrassment.

HE'S LOOKING DOWN ON SENATOR KENNEDY

Per David Jeremiah: I remember when I read this, I had to go back and make sure that I was reading the truth because it's so stark. Listen to this little story. In Dallas, Texas, the Parkland Hospital offers the second largest maternity service in the United States. In one recent year, 16,000 babies were born at the Parkland Hospital. And 70% of them were to illegal immigrants at a cost of $70.7 million. And one of the most disturbing aspects of illegal immigration is simply the fact that it's illegal. Somebody said, "The first thing that a person does who comes in here illegally to this country is break the law".

How does this man pass his first year of law school and not know the answer to the War Powers clause question? And to not be able to articulate the Non-Delegation Clause after a very major SCOTUS ruling just in the past year specifically regarding this issue and runaway authoritarianism by federal bureaucracies. Congress makes the law. Not the Executive. Some unelected bureaucrat doesn't get to just make up a regulation that crushes the coal industry or which uses a puddle to ban ranching on a 150-year old Montana ranch. And judges don't get to legislate from the bench either. I'm not a lawyer. I had a single class on the law in school just to teach me the basics so I could know the Controlled Substances Act well enough to practice and not get arrested. This guy's a professional sitting judge and can't answer. This isn't even a dodge like KBJ did with that "What is a woman?" stunt. This dude flat out didn't know.🤡🌎

DEI alive and well. This guy has no business being a judicial nominee.

Setting the bar to the lowest rung…

Any 9th Grade Student knows the definition of The War Powers Act because it is taught in CIVICS class.

No wonder some of the wrong people are in jail and the criminals are free to roam

“I can’t answer questions, because I’m too stupid to understand them”.

Everyone basically votes party lines im not sure why they waste time with questions.

Aren't these nominees already judges from lower courts? Sad to think what the future holds for this country.

Goof grief, where do they find these nominees from a box of Fruit Loops

Good grief where do they find these puppets they ain’t got a clue bout doing the job they get loads for doing. ANY VACANCY S BIG PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government is one of the founding principles of the nation's government. So it follows that, in general, the different branches cannot delegate their powers to each other. However, the Supreme Court has held that in some situations the legislative branch can grant some of its power to administrative agencies. United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation The Supreme Court has sometimes declared categorically that the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated,1 and on other occasions has recognized more forthrightly, as Chief Justice Marshall did in 1825, that, although Congress may not delegate powers that are strictly and exclusively legislative, it may delegate powers which "[it] may rightfully exercise itself."2 The categorical statement has never been literally true, the Court having upheld the delegation at issue in the very case in which the statement was made.3 The Court has long recognized that administration of the law requires the exercise of discretion,4 and that, in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever-changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.5 The real issue is where to draw the line. Chief Justice Marshall recognized that there is some difficulty in discerning the exact limits, and that the precise boundary of this power is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry, into which a court will not enter unnecessarily.6 Accordingly, the Court's solution has been to reject delegation challenges in all but the most extreme cases, and to accept delegations of vast powers to the President or to administrative agencies. With the exception of a brief period in the 1930s when the Court was striking down New Deal legislation on a variety of grounds, the Court has consistently upheld grants of authority that have been challenged as invalid delegations of legislative power. The modern doctrine may be traced to the 1928 case, J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, in which the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, upheld Congress's delegation to the President of the authority to set tariff rates that would equalize production costs in the United States and competing countries.7 Although formally invoking the contingency theory, the Court's opinion also looked forward, emphasizing that in seeking the cooperation of another branch Congress was restrained only according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the situation.8 This vague statement was elaborated somewhat in the statement that the Court would sustain delegations whenever Congress provided an intelligible principle to which the President or an agency must conform.9 As characterized by the Court, the delegations struck down in 1935 in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan10 and Schechter Poultry v. U.S.11 were not only broad but unprecedented. Both cases involved provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act. At issue in Panama Refining was a delegation to the President of authority to prohibit interstate transportation of what was known as hot oil-oil produced in excess of quotas set by state law. The problem was that the Act provided no guidance to the President in determining whether or when to exercise this authority, and required no finding by the President as a condition of exercise of the authority. Congress "declared no policy, . . . established no standard, [and] laid down no rule," but rather "left the matter to the President without standard or rule, to be dealt with as he pleased."12 At issue in Schechter was a delegation to the President of authority to promulgate codes of fair competition that could be drawn up by industry groups or prescribed by the President on his own initiative. The codes were required to implement the policies of the Act, but those policies were so general as to be nothing more than an endorsement of whatever might be thought to promote the recovery and expansion of the particular trade or industry. The President's authority to approve, condition, or adopt codes on his own initiative was similarly devoid of meaningful standards, and "virtually unfettered."13 This broad delegation was "without precedent." The Act supplied "no standards" for any trade or industry group, and, unlike other broad delegations that had been upheld, did not set policies that could be implemented by an administrative agency required to follow "appropriate administrative procedure." "Instead of prescribing rules of conduct, [the Act] authorize[d] the making of codes to prescribe them."14 Delegations to Administrative Agencies Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21 During all this time the Court "has not seen fit . . . to enlarge in the slightest [the] relatively narrow holdings" of Panama Refining and Schechter.22 Again and again, the Court has distinguished the two cases, sometimes by finding adequate standards in the challenged statute,23 sometimes by contrasting the vast scope of the power delegated by the National Industrial Recovery Act,24 and sometimes by pointing to required administrative findings and procedures that were absent in the NIRA.25 The Court has also relied on the constitutional doubt principle of statutory construction to narrow interpretations of statutes that, interpreted broadly, might have presented delegation issues.26 In more recent years, however, the modern application of the J. W. Hampton Court's intelligible principle test and the broad deference it affords congressional delegations of authority to the other branches has met with growing skepticism from some members of the Court.27 The 2019 case of Gundy v. United States highlighted an emerging split on the High Court with respect its nondelegation doctrine jurisprudence.28 In that case, a criminal defendant challenged a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) allowing the Attorney General to (1) specify the applicability of SORNA's registration requirements to individuals convicted of a sex offense prior to the statute's enactment and (2) prescribe rules for registration in jurisdictions where the offender resides, works, or is a student.29 Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Kagan interpreted this provision as limiting the Attorney General's authority to require pre-Act offenders to register as soon as feasible,30 concluding that the delegation easily passed constitutional muster.31 For the plurality, the Attorney General's authority under SORNA, when compared to other delegations the Court had previously upheld, was distinctly small-bore.32 Notably, Justice Kagan's opinion was met by a dissent, authored by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, which argued that the statute unconstitutionally provided the Attorney General unfettered discretion.33 Further, the dissenters claimed that the modern intelligible principle test has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution or in historical practice.34 In response, the plurality, noting that delegations akin to the one in SORNA are ubiquitous in the U.S. Code, argued that as a matter of pragmatism the Court should afford deference to Congress's judgments that such broad delegations are necessary.35 Providing the fifth vote to affirm the petitioner's conviction was Justice Alito, who, while agreeing that the plurality correctly applied the modern nondelegation case law, indicated he would support [the] effort of the dissenting Justices to reconsider the intelligible principle test once a majority of the Court concurred in rethinking the doctrine.36 Accordingly, Gundy witnessed the Court evenly split on how deferential the Court should be with regard to congressional delegations to the other branches, raising questions as to whether the nondelegation doctrine would remain moribund. Related Resources: Constitution Basics: Separation of Powers Article I, Section II: The House of Representatives Article I, Section III: The Senate

This guy's not smart enough to run a garden hose.

this theater got me jumping up and down inside and outside of me LMAO

Even on Hells kitchen, they dont learn to prepare scallops! Please do your homework before going in front of Congress! DANG, dude...

Pay attention. The nominee reverse engineers the law to validate his positions. He starts with the desired outcome, interpratvely deconstructing the law, validating his decision.

Where are they dragging these people from ???? Absolutely insane

Crazy Mazie is a joke. This guy is a joke. Arrogant DEI offering.

WOW !!!

Not sure I’ve ever seen a judicial nominee so uncomfortable and clueless regardless if Dem or Republican. He looked completely lost. As if he had never heard of these subjects before.

The arrogance of this candidate is astounding. Kennedy is brilliant as always.

I Can't ✝️ get enough of senator KENNEDY. THANK GOD WE HAVE HIM🙏

The country needs truck drivers.

How is that man not embarrassed?it's cringe worthy.

Wholly unqualified.

“Authorization is to authorize. And delegation is to delegate. And when the sun comes up, that’s a sunrise. I’ll definitely research those too, if they ever come before me.”

empty suit - we see this all over corporate america - seeded policies from our adversaries

We are so F’d

Affirmative action ☝

I dropped out of college but i know what the Constitution says, and understand it.

Come on, he is clearly incompetent. Hope he is not ruining many people's lives

This is just plain painful to watch.

You go Mr Kennedy thanks for what you do for the American people

Getting grilled by this Senator has to be frightening 😅

You flunked the test. Reject. Who’s next?

This guy is going to the 11th circus? He'll fit right in.

Common sense and Law 101 escapes all these nominees. This man has been judging other people's LIVES. Holy cow.

this dude should not be a judge! he is dangerous for society

Kennedy’s a Gem! 💎 He’s a grandfather or Father everybody wish they had !someone with strength and tenacity !! And No BullShite !!!

This guy seriously has a law degree 😢

I dont believe that guy would research anything he will do as he's told to advance himself if the price is right.

They should stop sending nominees and just send brochures instead. That's all you ever get anyway are the brochure answers - the tough questions are always side-stepped. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Affirmative action hire