Senator Kennedy Challenges Biden Nominee on Past Writings

Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana brought sharp scrutiny to Benjamin J. Cheeks, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. The exchange, marked by Kennedy’s trademark directness, revolved around Cheeks’ past writings on hot-button topics like policing and immigration.

Cheeks, currently serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge and a former criminal defense attorney, was nominated by President Biden on October 23. While the hearing was meant to assess his qualifications, it quickly turned into a pointed interrogation of his previous statements.

One of the first areas Senator Kennedy delved into was an article written by Cheeks in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. In the article, Cheeks expressed concerns about law enforcement. Quoting directly, Kennedy read, “Needless to say, I have a guarded opinion about the police. How do I teach my sons to respect them and fear them at the same time? There can be no question that police officers have some of these same internal or external biases.”

Kennedy zeroed in on the implication that all police officers carry such biases, asking Cheeks, “Did I read that correctly?” Cheeks confirmed the accuracy of the quote.

The senator appeared skeptical of Cheeks’ claim earlier in the hearing that he tried to remain neutral in his writings. Kennedy commented, “You’ve written quite a bit, and you’ve claimed you avoid taking positions, but this sounds like a position to me.”

The scrutiny continued as Kennedy brought up another article from 2018, where Cheeks discussed the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy on illegal border crossings. Kennedy quoted Cheeks as writing, “Technically, the law was broken, but these particular defendants, poor, hungry, hardworking, and not dangerous, deserve a pass from prosecution.”

Kennedy asked, “Saying that illegal immigration should not be criminalized is a position, is it not?” Cheeks admitted that it was, clarifying, “Everything I wrote was as an advocate, not as a sitting judge.”

This distinction became a focal point of Kennedy’s questioning. “So you’re saying you didn’t tell the truth as an advocate, but now you do as a judge?” Kennedy pressed. Cheeks appeared flustered, replying that he didn’t understand the question.

Kennedy pushed further, concluding with a blunt critique: “You’ve taken a lot of radical positions, Judge, and you can’t make this cat walk backwards. Now you can’t make this cat walk backwards.”

Cheeks attempted to assure the committee that his role as a magistrate judge has required him to remain neutral. “I no longer advocate,” he stated, emphasizing that his previous writings reflected his role as an attorney advocating for his clients, not his approach to the judiciary.

However, Kennedy’s line of questioning raised concerns about whether Cheeks could separate his past advocacy from his judicial responsibilities. The senator’s relentless probing highlighted the broader debate over how personal views and past statements influence judicial decision-making.

The tense exchange underscores the heightened scrutiny surrounding judicial appointments in today’s polarized political climate. Biden’s judicial nominees have faced consistent challenges from Senate Republicans, who often argue that the nominees’ personal beliefs may shape their legal interpretations.

For Cheeks, his writings and public commentary could become a sticking point in his confirmation process. Critics argue that such past positions raise doubts about his impartiality, while supporters contend that his record as a magistrate judge demonstrates his ability to apply the law fairly.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to review Cheeks’ qualifications and weigh his past statements against his professional record.

Senator Kennedy’s grilling of Cheeks was a reminder of his reputation for using wit and pointed questions to challenge nominees. His ability to distill complex issues into memorable soundbites often leaves a lasting impression, as evidenced by his remark about Cheeks’ inability to “make this cat walk backwards.”

Whether or not Cheeks is confirmed, the hearing highlighted the ongoing partisan divide over judicial nominations and the role of personal ideology in the courts. For now, the spotlight remains on the Senate Judiciary Committee as it deliberates on Cheeks’ fate.

The hearing provided a glimpse into the contentious process of federal judicial confirmations, where every word and past statement of a nominee is dissected. As Cheeks awaits further evaluation, his case serves as a flashpoint in the broader debate over the role of personal beliefs in judicial impartiality. Whether his assurances will satisfy the Senate remains to be seen, but the questions raised by Senator Kennedy will likely linger as part of the ongoing conversation.