A Biden judicial court nominee is taking flack online after he flubbed a question from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La, during an exchange that went viral.
Judge Kato Crews — who was nominated by President Joe Biden for the U.S. District Court of Colorado — failed to answer a question on the Brady motion, a basic legal concept.
When pressed on the issue by Kennedy, Crews said that the term was "not coming to mind." But that didn't stop the judge from giving his best guess.
"I believe that the Brady case involved something regarding the Second Amendment," Crews responded. "I have not had an occasion to address that."
A Brady motion is a legal concept that stems from the Brady v. Maryland Supreme Court decision in 1963, which held that the prosecution must hand over potentially favorable evidence to the defense.
Crews' difficulty with the Brady motion question provoked concern online, with many users pointing out that the exchange calls into question the judge's qualifications for office.
Journalist and author Mark Hyman quipped that the Crews’ failure to answer the question was "akin to a surgeon not knowing what a scalpel is."
Former senior advisor to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, responded with one word to the clip, "Terrifying."
Lawyer Jason Roberge said that it was difficult to understand how someone could become a judge and not know what a Brady motion is, considering that even first year law students should be familiar with the concept.
"I can’t imagine being a judge and not knowing what a Brady motion is…"
"That’s a fundamental concept that they usually mention before the first day of class for an overview of the judicial system," Roberge explained.
BIDEN JUDICIAL NOMINEE REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG
Crews is at least the second Biden judicial nominee who was unable to answer Constitutional questions this year.
Sen. Kennedy quizzed Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren on the meaning of Articles II and V of the Constitution in January.
"Article 5 is not coming to mind at the moment," Judge Bjelkengren told Kennedy.
"How about Article II?" Kennedy asked.
"Neither is Article II," Bjelkengren responded.
"Do you know what purposivism is?" the Senator asked, pressing further.
Bjelkengren attempted to defend her legal prowess, saying that she frequently encountered new concepts in her years of service as a judge.
"In my 12 years as an Assistant Attorney General, in my 9 years serving as a Judge, I was not faced with that precise question. We are the highest trial court in Washington State, so I’m frequently faced with issues that I’m not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law, I research and apply the law to the facts presented to me."
"It’s become the new normal apparently," entrepreneur Sam Bahreini tweeted in response to the two Biden legal nominees' to unsuccessful attempts to explain the law.
Fox News’ Michael Lee contributed to this report.
