Senator Kennedy to Biden Nominee: “I Got Word Salad Without Even Dressing” After She Refuses Every Question on Criminal Justice

On 3/5/2022, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana grilled a Biden judicial nominee who refused to name a single thing wrong with the criminal justice system, claimed she had “not given any thought” to whether prosecutors should ignore criminal statutes in the name of social justice, and would not give a direct answer to any of Kennedy’s questions. Kennedy told her: “I’m getting word salad here, and I don’t even have dressing on it.” He added: “I don’t believe you. I’m sorry. I just don’t believe you."

"Give Me Two Things Wrong With the Criminal Justice System”

Kennedy opened by asking the nominee — who had spent 12 years in post-conviction criminal law — a broad but reasonable question. “Could you tell me, in your opinion, what if anything is wrong with the criminal justice system in America?”

The nominee called it “a very broad and very important question” and began discussing “vigorous debate in the public.”

“Give me two,” Kennedy said. “Give me two things that you think are wrong.”

“Senator, I truly respect the role of policymakers in considering questions like this. It involves so much study of empirical data—” the nominee said.

“Counselor, I understand that, but give me two things,” Kennedy pressed. “Maybe you don’t think anything’s wrong with it, but if you could give me two things you think in your opinion are wrong with our criminal justice system—”

The nominee eventually offered only that she had “observed instances where individuals were denied fundamental rights defined in the Bill of Rights."

"Have You Thought About It?”

Kennedy then asked whether prosecutors should refuse to prosecute certain categories of crimes in the name of social justice. The nominee said she did “not actually have an opinion.”

“You’re an intelligent person. You spend your life involving criminal law. You don’t have an opinion,” Kennedy said. “Have you thought about it?”

“Senator, I — I’m not sure which specific instances—” the nominee began.

“Sure — how about shoplifting? How about receiving stolen property? How about resisting arrest? How about making criminal threats?” Kennedy said. “Do you think prosecutors should decide, in the name of social justice, not to prosecute these criminal violations? Have you thought about it?”

“Senator, I can’t say I have,” the nominee said.

“You’re telling me you’ve not given any thought to this? None whatsoever?” Kennedy asked.

“Thank you, I don’t believe you,” Kennedy said flatly. “I’m sorry. I just don’t believe you. You’re a well-read, intelligent person. And I don’t know why you won’t give me your opinion on this."

"Word Salad Without Dressing”

Kennedy asked one final time whether the nominee thought prosecutors should “ignore criminal violations as per statutes passed by a legislative body in the name of social justice, as a matter of a class of cases.”

“All I can say, Senator, is I believe that prosecutors have a very important job,” the nominee said.

“I agree. Their job is enormously important. I’m just asking you to answer my question,” Kennedy said. “I can’t vote for you if you’re not gonna answer my question, because I don’t know what position you’re gonna take if you’re on the court.”

“Would you answer my question?” Kennedy asked.

“I would hope that prosecutors would use all of their tools and resources to make important decisions about issues such as the one that you’ve raised,” the nominee said.

“Counselor, I’m very disappointed,” Kennedy said. “I’m getting word salad here, and I don’t even have dressing on it. We both know what I’m talking about, and I think your refusal to answer gives me the answer.”

Kennedy vs. Durbin

Committee Chairman Dick Durbin interjected to defend the nominee, arguing “it is physically, legally impossible to prosecute all cases” and that prosecutors “establish priorities.”

Kennedy pushed back respectfully but firmly. “Mr. Chairman, you know the affection that I have for you, but this is the third hearing in which you’ve made editorial comments about my questions,” Kennedy said.

“Number one, this very bright person has spent her life in the criminal justice system. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what, if anything, she thinks is wrong with it and get a candid answer,” Kennedy said. “Number two, of course you’re right about prosecutorial discretion, but you and I both know that’s not what my question was about.”

“We have a number of district attorneys that have taken the position that they are going to ignore criminal statutes passed by a legislative body and they are not going to prosecute an entire line of cases — for example, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, resisting arrest — in the name of social justice,” Kennedy said. “Now, Mr. Chairman, we both know what I’m talking about, and so does the witness. And I don’t know why she won’t answer the question.”

Key Takeaways

Kennedy asked a Biden judicial nominee with 12 years in criminal law to name two things wrong with the criminal justice system; she could not provide a direct answer.
She claimed she had “not given any thought” to whether prosecutors should refuse to prosecute crimes in the name of social justice; Kennedy said: “I don’t believe you.”
Kennedy said: “I’m getting word salad here, and I don’t even have dressing on it.”
He told the nominee her “refusal to answer gives me the answer” and that he could not vote for her without knowing her positions.
Kennedy pushed back on Chairman Durbin’s defense, saying the question was not about routine prosecutorial discretion but about DAs ignoring entire categories of law.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

Give me two things you think are wrong with the criminal justice system. Senator, I truly respect the role of policymakers. It involves so much study of empirical data.
Have you thought about it? Senator, I can’t say I have. You’ve not given any thought to this? None whatsoever? I don’t believe you.
I’m getting word salad here, and I don’t even have dressing on it.
I can’t vote for you if you’re not gonna answer my question, because I don’t know what position you’re gonna take on the court.
Your refusal to answer gives me the answer.
We both know what I’m talking about and so does the witness. I don’t know why she won’t answer the question.

Full transcript: 1358 words transcribed via Whisper AI.