“Who Appointed You to the Supreme Court?”: Sen. Kennedy Destroys Sally Yates Over Arrogant Claim of Unconstitutionality

In one of the most blistering and legally precise interrogations seen on Capitol Hill, Louisiana Senator John Neely Kennedy methodically dismantled the core justification offered by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend a presidential executive order.

The exchange, which quickly went viral, pitted Kennedy’s razor-sharp focus on constitutional law against Yates’s determination that the Trump administration’s 2017 travel executive order (EO) was unconstitutional based on her own departmental analysis of its religious intent. The result was a stunning humiliation of the former AG, who was forced to defend her decision to supplant the judicial branch’s authority with her own personal legal judgment.

The Conflict: Law vs. Conscience

The confrontation began calmly. Senator Kennedy immediately asked Yates about her decision to decline to support or defend President Trump’s executive order.

Yates confirmed her decision, stating: “I believed that any argument that we would have to make in its defense would not be grounded in the truth. Because to make an argument in its defense, we would have to argue that the executive order had nothing to do with religion, that it was not done with an intent to discriminate against Muslims.”

Yates grounded her refusal in the subjective assessment of intent, arguing that to defend the EO would require Justice Department lawyers to effectively lie in court. While she spoke confidently of her “constitutional analysis,” Kennedy quickly recognized the fundamental legal flaw in her position—the Department of Justice is tasked with defending the laws and orders of the United States government until they are definitively struck down by a court.

The Constitutional Smackdown

Kennedy pressed Yates repeatedly on a single, core question: At what point does an act of Congress or an executive order officially become unconstitutional?

Yates repeatedly tried to deflect, offering long explanations about judicial analysis and the facts of the case, attempting to justify her personal pre-judgment.

Kennedy, maintaining a calm, relentless pace, cut through the academic language. He provided a simple hypothetical:

“I can look at a statute and say I think that’s unconstitutional. Does that make it unconstitutional?”

Yates again pivoted back to the DOJ’s ethical dilemma, avoiding the direct question of judicial supremacy. This avoidance led to Kennedy’s ultimate, viral moment of destruction.

The Knockout Line: A Question of Authority

After Yates repeatedly insisted that she believed the order to be unconstitutional, Kennedy delivered the question that instantly exposed the arrogance behind her stance:

“Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?”

The room reacted with stifled laughter and murmurs. Kennedy was not simply asking about her job title; he was questioning the very foundation of her constitutional authority.

He followed up by affirming the bedrock principle of U.S. law:

“Isn’t it a court of final jurisdiction decides what’s constitutional or not? In fact, aren’t most acts of Congress presumed to be constitutional?”

Kennedy perfectly framed the former AG’s decision not as an act of courageous resistance, but as an usurpation of the judiciary’s role. He argued that Yates essentially made an “a priori determination,” setting herself up as the arbiter of the Constitution, despite the fact that the EO had not yet been fully adjudicated by the courts.

Political Posturing vs. Legal Duty

Kennedy further highlighted the appearance of political bias by bringing up the Department of Justice’s refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during the Obama administration.

He suggested that the decision not to defend the EO fit a pattern: “It seems y’all only refuse to defend laws when a Republican signs them.” While Yates denied the political nature of the decision, the juxtaposition with DOMA reinforced the perception that her refusal was based on personal or ideological opposition rather than an objective, insurmountable legal necessity.

Senator Kennedy ultimately concluded his line of questioning with a clear message: the American system of governance is founded on the rule of law, not the subjective “feelings” or ideological disagreements of unelected officials. Sally Yates came to the hearing prepared to defend her principles; Senator Kennedy came prepared to defend the Constitution, and in that intense exchange, the principle of judicial review won decisively.