Vice President Kamala Harris' past behavior during judicial nomination hearings has raised questions about the types of judges she might nominate if given the opportunity.

Legal experts interviewed by the Daily Caller News suggest that Harris' questioning style during these hearings indicates a preference for judges who align with left-wing goals rather than those who interpret the law and Constitution as written.

During her time as a California senator, Harris posed questions to Trump's judicial appointees on topics such as climate change, abortion, and membership in faith-based groups.

These inquiries have been characterized as having a sharp partisan slant, leading some experts to believe that Harris values judges who can score political points with voters over those who prioritize constitutional interpretation.

Harris' Controversial Questioning Techniques

Harris's approach to judicial nomination hearings has been notably confrontational. During Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing, she asked whether Barrett believed in climate change and its threat to air and water quality.

Similarly, at Justice Brett Kavanaugh's hearing, Harris inquired about laws giving the government power over male bodies.

The Vice President's questioning extended to lower court nominations as well. In written questions to U.S. District Court Judge Brian Buescher, Harris probed his membership in the Knights of Columbus, describing it as an "all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men" and questioning his awareness of the organization's stance on abortion rights.

Experts Weigh In On Harris' Judicial Philosophy

Legal experts have expressed concern over Harris' approach to judicial nominations. Carrie Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network, criticized Harris' line of questioning, suggesting it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the court's role.

Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, shared his perspective:

The liberal view of the judiciary is political and their goal is to appoint judges who will reliably advance liberal political interests. Liberals believe that judges' personal views, more than the law, drive their decisions and, therefore, press to uncover nominees' personal views on particular issues. Liberals are fostering a political view of the judiciary that not only conflicts with the [designs] of America's Founders, but makes the 'rule of law' impossible.

Potential Influence On Future Nominations

Harris' past actions during nomination hearings have led to speculation about the types of judges she might support or nominate in the future.

Some experts believe her behavior indicates a tendency to prioritize candidates who align with progressive ideologies over those who prioritize strict constitutional interpretation.

The Vice President's connections to progressive court reform groups have also come under scrutiny. Her communications director, Brian Fallon, previously worked as the executive director for Demand Justice, an organization that advocates for expanding the Supreme Court and has been involved in campaigns related to judicial appointments.

Harris' Legal Background And Priorities

As California's attorney general, Harris demonstrated her legal priorities through various actions.

She opened an investigation into Exxon Mobil Corp. regarding the potential misleading of investors about climate change risks. Additionally, she filed lawsuits against energy companies like Chevron and BP.

Harris also defended a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortions, although the Supreme Court later struck this law down.

These actions provide insight into her legal priorities and the types of issues she might consider when evaluating potential judicial nominees.

Conclusion

Vice President Kamala Harris' past behavior during judicial nomination hearings has sparked debate about her approach to the judiciary. Her questioning techniques and focus on specific issues have led some experts to believe she prioritizes political alignment over strict constitutional interpretation.

Harris' legal background and connections to progressive groups further inform speculation about the types of judges she might support or nominate in the future. These factors combine to create a complex picture of Harris' potential influence on future judicial appointments.