Watch Senator kennedy and Josh Hawley COMBO TORCH Radical Judge Wise In Exciting Senate SHOWDOWN

Let me put it in another way. Have you ever gone to a protest, a public protest, while you're a sitting judge? Senator Kennedy, the article that you are referring to was written— Have you ever gone to a protest while you were a sitting judge? You wrote while you were a sitting judge. Don't you think that was impermissible? Will you recuse? Let's get an answer to that. Senator, your time is expired. Will you recuse? I did not take a position as to those issues that you have raised. You took a position on all of these things, and your position is insane. Totally insane. I will absolutely not vote for you. There's not a world in which I could support you. I can't believe you have been nominated. Well, if that didn't feel like a courtroom drama, I don't know what does. That was Judge Wise dodging harder than a quarterback under blitz, while Senators Kennedy and Hawley kept firing the question straight up the middle elbow. Senator, here's the thing. These hearings aren't supposed to be talent shows. You don't get points for dancing around simple questions. You want a lifetime seat on the bench, then you should be able to look the American people in the eye and give them clarity, not confusion. And that's exactly why this clip matters. Because if the law itself starts sounding like word salad, you better believe your freedoms are the next thing on the chopping block. Stick with me, because after we watch the full exchange, I'm going to break down why this hearing should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who still believes in blind justice. This is Free Thinking. I'm Liberty. Hit subscribe, smash the like, and drop your take in the comments. Trust me, you're going to want your voice heard on this one. On March 8th, 2017, you wrote an article for Time Magazine. While you were a sitting judge, it's entitled, Judge, Gender Laws are at Odds with Science. I'm going to quote your words. When legislators blur the lines of church and state and enact laws that permit or prohibit conduct based on biological gender, as only male or female, they place an impossible burden on the judiciary. End quote. Did I read that accurately? I do not know, because I don't have the article in front of me. I do. You also said in that article, quote, your words, not mine, sex has countless, countless natural permutations. End quote. Did I read that correctly? I believe that is consistent with medical science and under the Daubert standard, the science that comes in as expert testimony in trials. On October 13th, 2020, while you were serving as a state judge, you wrote an article for The Atlantic entitled, quote, your words, not mine, America's judiciary doesn't look like America. And you criticized this committee and President Trump for his judicial nominees. You said, quote, these are your words, not mine, the judiciary crafted over the past four years does not look like America. Not one of these judges is black, and more than 90% were raised or currently identify as Christians. I don't know how you knew that. And then you say, quote, your words, not mine, identity is the lens that filters everything and everyone we encounter. End quote. Did I read that correctly? Again, I don't know, because I don't have the article in front of me. I do. I got it right here. And you talk about Girls, Inc. You say you've never heard of them. You don't know that much about them. You were on the board from 2014 to 2024. You're still on their board, aren't you? I'm not. My term expired this last month. And you've given them over $50,000, haven't you? I do not believe that is correct. That's what your report says. And this is the same Girls, Inc. that says, quote, on its website, here's how they define girls. Quote, girls refers to gender-expansive youth, cis girls, trans girls, non-binary youth, gender non-conforming youth, genderqueer youth, and any girl-identified youth. Did I read that correctly? I don't know. I've never heard of that policy or that definition from Girls, Inc. Listen, in spite of your – can I just have 30 more seconds? In spite of your strongly-held political beliefs – and we've got all of them, all your articles. They're as long as King Collins are. Are you telling us today, do you believe that you will not allow your strongly-held political beliefs to influence your judicial opinions? Do you believe that? Judge Weiss, let me just start with you. So as I understand it, you don't think that there really is any clear-cut distinction between male and female as biological categories, is that correct? That's what you wrote. Sorry. That is not correct. That's what you wrote. Look, I'm reading your article, your Time Magazine article. Just to be clear, you wrote this while you were a sitting judge in 2017? You were on the bench? That is correct, after a case I had. Right. So, interesting choice to be writing opinion pieces about your cases, but in any event, you say that controversial pieces of legislation enacted in the last two decades rely on a clear-cut interpretation of sex, what I just asked you, but you say that that's wrong. In fact, gender is an intricate continuum and not two tidy boxes, that's what you say. So have you changed your opinion? You just gave me a different answer. I believe that, generally speaking, there are two sexes, male and female, that are designated by a doctor at birth, and that that applies to the vast majority of people. But that laws that are based on that distinction are impermissible. That's what you say in this article. Is that correct? That's still your view? That is not what I say. Really? You say that if there is, for instance, a law that requires a distinction between male and female in bathrooms, that the judges cannot apply that law with any consistency, can't apply it consistent with equal protection, there are no, what is it? It's virtually impossible for judges to consistently apply a law that permits or prohibits conduct based on whether someone is a man or a woman. So all bathroom laws that require biological sex, that designate bathrooms based on biological sex are impermissible? That is not the position that I took in the article. That's what it says. It's impossible for judges to consistently apply a law that permits or prohibits conduct based on whether someone is a man or a woman, and you specifically cite bathroom laws as an example of this. In fact, you criticize the then-Trump administration's designation of gender-based bathrooms, right? Sounds like you've made up your mind on a lot of things, but I just want to get clear on this, because this is an important issue, certainly to people in my state. It's a very important issue. So you think that bathroom designations, same with locker rooms, I guess, girls' locker rooms, impermissible? Biological men have to be permitted into girls' locker rooms? That is absolutely not what I said in my article. That is absolutely the import and the takeaway of your piece. You suggest at least three different constitutional problems with any gender-based laws, including specifically bathroom laws. You write about it. Equal protection violation, due process, void for vagueness. I was making a list as I was reading through. You say that our biological variability means that a two-bathroom, even two-sex-based approach is inadequate. Judges cannot apply it. So if Title IX is interpreted to protect women's sports, biological women playing sports with other biological women, it's unconstitutional? Senator. That's a yes or no. I was referring to the five babies born a day that doctors have challenged. No, you wrote an article that is extremely broad that pronounces on a range of issues and pronounces quite definitively. What's this comment at the end of your article about the fact that judges must see the world through a secular lens and when legislators blur the lines of church and state to enact laws that permit or prohibit conduct based on biological gender as only male or female, they place an impossible burden on the judiciary. What's that mean? The distinctions between male and female are a violation of church and state? Judges have to be able to administer these laws if the direction, and I have to tell you, I work really hard to get it right, to do exactly what Congress tells me to do and the legislature tells me to do. And as a result, if a doctor finds it difficult to identify at the moment of birth for certain children... Is a law that distinguishes between male and female a violation of church and state? You say when legislators blur the lines of church and state and enact laws that permit or prohibit conduct based on biological gender as only male and female, they place an impossible burden on the judiciary. So this is a First Amendment violation? If what you are telling judges is that in order to... I'm not telling you anything. I'm reading you your comments and I am asking you if you are still committed to these and it sounds like you are. I have to tell you, I think these positions are insane. I think the idea that laws based on the distinction between male and female are a violation of church and state is insane, totally insane. I think the idea that laws that would say women's locker rooms are protected from biological men, that those are impermissible, that's insane. But that's what you say in this article. You are going to have to recuse yourself in a lot of cases, aren't you? Will you recuse in every case involving biological sex if you are confirmed? Senator, respectfully, that is not what the article says. You have pronounced on all of these issues, will you recuse yourself in any case involving Title IX, biological sex, challenges to locker rooms, girls' sports, bathroom bills. All of those things are covered in this article that you wrote while you were a sitting judge. Don't you think that was impermissible? Will you recuse? Let's get an answer to that. Senator, your time has expired. Will you recuse? All right, now you've seen the whole thing. Let's talk about what just happened. Here's the bottom line. We had not one, but two senators, Kennedy and Hawley, both putting the same simple test to Judge Wise. Can you commit to clear common sense principles, or are you going to hide behind activist word games? And what did we see? Evasion, denial, and a whole lot of, I don't have that article in front of me. Folks, I don't need the article in front of me to recognize a pattern. This is what we've seen from the left for years. When pressed on their record, suddenly the memory fades. But when it's time to write for Time Magazine or the Atlantic, the opinions flow like a river. Funny how that works. And let's be clear. We're talking about someone who wants a lifetime seat on a federal bench, shaping law for decades. Instead of saying, yes, I will uphold the law as written, we get doublespeak about permutations, identity lenses, and the judiciary being burdened. Burden. You know what's a burden? Citizens who just want clarity, like knowing the locker room their daughter uses won't suddenly become a political battlefield. That's the heart of this. Kennedy and Hawley weren't trying to score cheap shots. They were voicing what every parent, every small-town American, every person with common sense has been thinking. If the law isn't rooted in reality, then it isn't law at all. It's politics in a robe. Now let's zoom out. Why does this matter? Because once judges start seeing themselves as activists instead of arbiters, Lady Justice loses her blindfold. And once that blindfold comes off, the scales tip toward ideology, not fairness. That's dangerous. That's not America. And maybe here's the most telling part. When Kennedy pressed wise on whether her personal beliefs would bleed into rulings, she gave the polished answer about always putting law above personal beliefs. Sounds naïve, right? But if you truly believe that, why write political op-eds as a sitting judge in the first place? You can't play umpire and lobbyist at the same time. This isn't about one nominee. It's about whether our courts remain courts or whether they turn into legislatures in black robes. That's why Kennedy was sharp. That's why Hawley was blunt. Because if we let this slide, tomorrow's rulings won't just be about bathrooms or nonprofits. They'll be about what freedoms you're allowed to keep. So here's my takeaway. Judge wise may call it nuance. I call it activism. And activism doesn't belong on the federal bench, period. This is free thinking. I'm liberty. If you agree it's time to stop playing games with America's future, hit subscribe, share this video, and let's keep the fight for common sense alive. Because the minute we stop asking the tough questions, the swamp wins. And we're not about to let that happen.