Kennedy exposes Biden’s judge over radical views — and the entire hearing room goes silent. Senator John Kennedy pressed Judge Mustafa Kasubhai on controversial stances — from mandatory pronoun declarations in court to separate evidentiary standards for diversity cases. But what truly stunned viewers was Kasubhai’s sudden hesitation when faced with one unexpected question — a moment that has since ignited fierce debate across the country
In a riveting Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in October 2023, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) turned the spotlight on U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, a Biden nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, exposing what he called radical views that left the room silent. Kennedy’s relentless questioning zeroed in on Kasubhai’s courtroom practices, from mandating pronoun declarations to advocating separate evidentiary standards for diversity cases. But it was a single, unexpected question that brought Kasubhai to a halt, igniting a firestorm of debate across the nation and raising questions about judicial impartiality.
Kasubhai, nominated in September 2023 to replace Judge Ann Aiken, faced scrutiny over his judicial record and writings, which critics argue reveal an activist bent. Kennedy, known for his incisive interrogations, challenged Kasubhai’s policy of requiring litigants and attorneys to announce their preferred pronouns and honorifics, such as “Mx.,” in court. “I’m looking at an order you issued requiring the use of pronouns in your court,” Kennedy pressed, citing a directive on Kasubhai’s judge information page. Kasubhai insisted it was an “invitation,” not a mandate, but Kennedy shot back, “That’s not voluntary. That’s oppressive,” arguing that forcing litigants to comply under judicial authority undermines fairness. The room grew quiet as Kennedy’s words landed, with senators and spectators visibly processing the exchange.
The senator didn’t stop there. He confronted Kasubhai over a 2021 essay, “Pronouns and Privilege,” where the judge suggested that higher courts, even the Supreme Court, should adopt pronoun disclosures for “equity and inclusion.” Kennedy also highlighted a 2021 Oregon State Bar interview where Kasubhai stated, “We have to set aside conventional ideas of proof when we are dealing with the interpersonal work of equity, diversity, and inclusion.” Kennedy pounced, asking, “Are you suggesting we abandon clear evidence or sworn testimony for DEI cases?” Kasubhai’s hesitation—described by onlookers as a stunned pause—was the moment that electrified the hearing. His vague response, emphasizing “context,” failed to satisfy Kennedy, who declared, “If I could vote no twice, I would.”
The silence in the room reflected the weight of Kennedy’s critique. Kasubhai’s policies, including his support for Black Lives Matter activists in a 2020 ruling against a Eugene, Oregon, curfew, have drawn Republican ire, with Senator Ted Cruz calling his record “so far out of the mainstream.” Posts on X echoed this sentiment, with users praising Kennedy’s “takedown” and questioning Kasubhai’s fitness for a lifetime federal judgeship. Yet, supporters, including progressive groups like the Alliance for Justice, defended Kasubhai’s inclusivity, arguing his pronoun policy fosters a welcoming courtroom. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights lauded his historic nomination as the first Muslim-American district judge in Oregon, confirmed in January 2024 by a 51-44 Senate vote.
The debate didn’t end in the hearing room. Kasubhai’s hesitation sparked a broader conversation about judicial neutrality. Critics on social media labeled his views “woke activism,” with one X post stating, “A judge who prioritizes pronouns over evidence can’t be trusted.” Supporters countered that his approach modernizes the judiciary, with one user writing, “Kasubhai’s inclusivity is what justice needs.” Kennedy’s unexpected question—“Do you believe a judge’s personal beliefs should shape courtroom rules?”—exposed a fault line: can a judge’s advocacy for diversity coexist with impartiality?
Despite the controversy, Kasubhai’s confirmation proceeded, but the hearing remains a flashpoint. Kennedy’s grilling, particularly that moment of silence, underscored concerns about ideological influence in the judiciary. As Kasubhai assumes his role, the nation watches, divided over whether his views represent progress or a departure from judicial norms. Kennedy’s confrontation has left an indelible mark, reminding Americans that the bench is no place for unchecked ideology.
