While it is a Senator’s role to question potential Supreme Court Justices, on Tuesday, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas was accused of a “hate crime” when he wanted to know nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s belief on critical race theory. Questioning her time as a board member to the Georgetown Day School, Cruz noted that Jackson had given several speeches around CRT that were “filled and overflowing with critical race theory.” Although Jackson claimed she had no control over what was taught to the students, according to Democratic strategist Chai Komanduri, Cruz openly participated in a “Hate Crime”. 

Speaking on MSNBC, Komanduri said, “This is about [Jackson] being a black woman, and this is about basically casting her as a radical, as a black radical who is out to get white people. That is specifically what they are trying to do. It’s really ugly. Quite frankly, it looked like I saw Ted Cruz commit a hate crime, in that hearing room. It was McCarthyism at its worst.”

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

Having worked for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Komanduri added, “He wants to gin up white grievance, him and Marsha Blackburn— the GOP want to gin up white grievance, ahead of the midterm and link Judge Jackson to that cause. It’s really, frankly, was disgusting and ugly to watch.”

The Republican National Committee appeared to side with Cruz when they tweeted a GIF that crossed out Jackson’s initials and replaced them with CRT. Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee replied to the tweet, writing, “Shameful! Whoever or whatever provoked this racial attack should be exposed for their divisive wrong-headed attack!” the lawmaker said. “Judge Brown-Jackson believes in equal justice in America! She is a Patriot who loves this country! Stop this racial attack! Now! Enough is Enough! GOP starting up their meritless smears!!”

Cruz continued his attack on the Democrats’ agenda, asking the nominee, “Under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I’m a woman and apparently I’m a woman, does that mean that I would have article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based restriction? If I can change my gender, if I can be a woman and an hour later decide I’m not a woman anymore I guess I would lose article 3 standing? Tell me whether that same law applies to other protected characteristics? For example, I’m a Hispanic man, could I decide if I was an Asian man. Would I have the ability to be an Asian man and challenge Harvard’s discrimination because I made that decision?”

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of DrewBerquist.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.