Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker, D-N.J., tried Tuesday to score another viral hit from his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee as he cross-examined Neomi Rao, President Trump’s nominee to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
But rather than pulling off another “bad boy” incident ripe for boosting his White House ambitions, he came across instead as a poorly informed and incompetent. The most embarrassing moment occurred when Booker, 49, tried to press Rao, 45, into saying something negative about gays.
In service of this line of attack, Booker asked, “Have you ever had an LGBTQ law clerk?”
“I have not been a judge so I don’t have any law clerks,” Rao responded.
Oof.
Booker tried to salvage the blown attack with, “I’m sorry, someone working for you?”
“To be honest,” Rao responded, “I don’t know the sexual orientation of my staff. I take people as they come, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation.”
This botched “gotcha” came after the senator pressed Rao, whose Parsi (Indian Zoroastrian) parents immigrated to the United States in the 1970s, to answer whether she thinks homosexuality is a sin.
“Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?” the senator asked.
Rao said, “Um, senator, I’m not sure the relevance of that to —”
“I think it’s relevant to your opinion if you think African-American relationships are immoral, do you think gay relationships are immoral?” Booker said.
“I do not,” the nominee responded.
“Do you believe they are a sin?” Booker repeated.
Rao said, “Senator, my personal views on any of these subjects are things I would put to one side.”
“So you’re not saying here whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married. You’re not willing to comment on that?” the senator said.
“Senator, no,” Rao said.
“Excuse me?” Booker asked. “I didn’t hear your response.”
“My answer is that these personal views are ones that I would put to one side, whatever my personal views are on this subject, I would faithfully follow the precedents of the Supreme Court,” Rao said.
Booker then launched into a winding monologue about the “discrimination” and the “long histories of violence, intimidation, bullying,” etc., often in the name of religion. In other words, Booker finally got the part that he really cared about: Showboating for the cameras.
The problem, however, is that not only do his questions have nothing to do with divining Rao’s jurisprudential opinions or her overall temperament for the court, but Booker’s lines of inquiry also come close to applying a religious litmus test to her nomination, which is obviously unconstitutional.
Of course, after watching Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., try to impugn the faith of President Trump’s Roman Catholic court nominees, Booker’s performance Tuesday is pretty much in line with the anti-religious bigotry being championed right now by the Democratic Party.
Rao has been rated “well-qualified for the appeals court” by the American Bar Association.
