Senators Kennedy and Cruz Tag-Team to Grill Partisan Judicial Nominee Dale Ho in Explosive Senate Showdown

The Senate Judiciary Committee rarely sees a grilling this intense. On a day that started with routine confirmation hearings, the temperature in the room soared as Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) teamed up to put judicial nominee Dale Ho on the hot seat. What followed was a masterclass in pointed questioning, exposing deep concerns about partisanship, fairness, and the future of America’s courts.

Setting the Stage: A Judge’s Impartiality Under Fire

Judicial nominees are expected to be paragons of impartiality, arbiters of the law who leave personal politics at the courthouse door. But Dale Ho, nominated for a federal judgeship by President Biden, has a record that raised red flags for many Republicans. His past tweets, public statements, and even his own description as a “wild-eyed sort of leftist” came under the microscope.

Senator Kennedy wasted no time. He opened with a hypothetical that cut to the heart of the matter: “If there is someone who considers himself or herself a conservative in the state of New York who, God forbid, finds themself in a courtroom where you’re wearing a robe, what comfort do you think that litigant would have… that you’ve described the hatred of conservatives, the righteous indignation, the anger at conservatives as a tremendous source of power for you personally?”

Ho, clearly uncomfortable, tried to distance himself from the remarks, insisting he never used those words. But Kennedy pressed, “If you did use those words, will you pull down your nomination?” Ho dodged, saying he didn’t believe he’d used them, but refused to make a clear commitment.

.

.

.

The Viral Clip: “Republicanism is an Anti-Democratic Virus”

The hearing took a dramatic turn when Cruz confronted Ho about a phrase attributed to him: “Republicanism is an anti-democratic virus.” Ho denied saying it, but Cruz wasn’t satisfied. “You’re under oath now,” Cruz reminded him, pressing for a definitive answer. Ho repeated his denial but hedged when asked if he’d withdraw his nomination should evidence surface.

This moment resonated far beyond the committee room. Social media lit up with clips of Ho’s evasive answers, many viewers noting that his unwillingness to commit to impartiality was itself revealing. As one commentator put it, “If a judge can’t say he’d step aside after being caught making deeply partisan, anti-conservative statements, what does that say about his fitness for the bench?”

Twitter Past: Coarseness and Regret

Senator Kennedy then turned to Ho’s history of inflammatory tweets targeting Republican senators, including Tom Cotton, Marsha Blackburn, and John Cornyn. Kennedy’s questioning was relentless: “Do you generally tweet things you don’t mean?”

Ho tried to sidestep, saying he regretted the tone of some tweets and that Twitter had become a “very coarse” platform. But Kennedy wasn’t having it. “Do you regret it because you didn’t mean it, or do you regret it because it might cause you not to be confirmed?”

Ho claimed his regret stemmed from contributing to the “coarseness of our discourse,” but Kennedy pressed further, asking whether his newfound belief in “equal dignity and worth” for all—including Republicans—was an epiphany brought on by his nomination.

Anger as a Source of Power: A Church Anecdote or a Red Flag?

Perhaps the most damning exchange came when Cruz quoted Ho’s own words from a 2017 essay: “Anger can in fact be a tremendous source of power. For me, righteous indignation can provide a sense of moral clarity and motivate the long hours needed to get the work done.”

Cruz asked, “What comfort do you think that litigant would have that you’ve described the hatred of conservatives, the righteous indignation, the anger at conservatives as a tremendous source of power for you personally? How does that possibly give anyone comfort that you would be a fair and impartial judge?”

Ho attempted to explain the quote as a church anecdote, claiming he was relaying a joke about anger being a temporary “sugar rush” rather than a lasting motivator. But Cruz wasn’t convinced. “Well, that’s not what you said,” Cruz retorted, highlighting the pattern of partisan rhetoric in Ho’s record.

Yale Law and Asian-American Discrimination: Dodging the Issues

Cruz then shifted to another issue: allegations of discrimination against Asian-Americans at Yale Law School, Ho’s alma mater. Cruz noted that the Biden administration had dropped an investigation into the school’s admissions practices, which some see as evidence of bias.

Ho, a civil rights lawyer, claimed ignorance of the details, saying he hadn’t “followed the ins and outs” of the case. Cruz pressed, “Do you agree with your alma mater’s policy of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions?”

Ho responded by citing his membership in the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association and his efforts in the Asian-American legal community, but again denied knowledge of any discriminatory policy at Yale.

The Bottom Line: Substance Over Spin

As the hearing wrapped up, the message from Senators Kennedy and Cruz was clear: America needs judges who are impartial, not partisan warriors. Judges must be able to set aside personal views, especially anger and righteous indignation, and apply the law equally to all.

Kennedy summed it up: “We don’t need angry judges. We need judges who are fair and can see both points of view.” The concern, shared by many watching, is that Ho’s record and evasive answers suggest he may not be able to do that.

Why This Matters: The Integrity of the Courts Is On the Line

This hearing was more than political theater—it was a referendum on the future of America’s judiciary. In an era where trust in public institutions is eroding, the impartiality of judges is paramount. The exchange between Kennedy, Cruz, and Ho revealed just how high the stakes are.

If the next generation of judges is selected not for their neutrality but for their activism, the integrity of the courts could be compromised. Americans of all political stripes deserve to know that when they enter a courtroom, the judge before them is there to uphold the law—not to advance a personal or partisan agenda.

The Fallout: What Comes Next?

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s grilling of Dale Ho has already become a viral moment, sparking debate across the country. Supporters of Kennedy and Cruz hail their tough questioning as a necessary defense of judicial impartiality. Critics accuse them of partisan grandstanding.

But whatever your perspective, one thing is clear: the confirmation process for federal judges is no longer a rubber stamp. Every word, every tweet, every past statement is fair game. And as America grapples with questions of fairness, equality, and the rule of law, the spotlight on judicial nominees will only grow brighter.

Final Thoughts

The Dale Ho hearing is a reminder that the judiciary is the last line of defense for American democracy. Senators Kennedy and Cruz, through their tag-team questioning, exposed the dangers of partisanship and the need for judges who can rise above the political fray.

As the debate continues and the nomination hangs in the balance, Americans should pay close attention. The future of the courts—and the principle of blind justice—may depend on it.

If you value fair courts and honest debate, stay tuned. This story isn’t over—and the fight for the integrity of America’s judiciary is just beginning.