FED-UP Sen. Kennedy ANGRILY DESTROYS EX- A.G Sally Yates For Her Arrogant Response to his Questions.

⚖️ Senator Kennedy vs. Sally Yates: The Constitutional Showdown 🏛️

The Senate hearing featuring Senator John Kennedy and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates escalated into a fiery constitutional debate focused on the separation of powers, the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the criteria for determining the unconstitutionality of a presidential action. The core conflict centered on Yates’s refusal to defend President Trump’s travel ban Executive Order (EO).

I. The Core Legal Conflict: Unconstitutionality

Yates’s decision to instruct DOJ lawyers not to defend the EO stemmed from her personal analysis that the order was unconstitutional.

Yates’s Rationale: She believed the EO was unconstitutional because any defense would require DOJ lawyers to argue that the order “had nothing to do with religion” and was not done with an “intent to discriminate against Muslims.” Yates stated this argument would “not be grounded in the truth” based on her analysis of intent, an analysis she claimed was “borne out in several court decisions since that time.”

Kennedy’s Challenge to Authority: Senator Kennedy repeatedly challenged the premise of Yates’s refusal by asking: “At what point does an act of Congress or an executive order become unconstitutional?” He pressed her on whether her personal opinion, or “op priori determination,” superseded the constitutional role of the courts, culminating in the sharp question: “Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?”

The Presumption of Constitutionality: Kennedy hammered the point that most acts of Congress are “presumed to be constitutional” until a court of final jurisdiction decides otherwise.

Yates’s Defense of Action: Yates defended her action by stating that it is the “responsibility of the Attorney General” to say “no” to the President if asked to do something he or she believes is “unlawful or unconstitutional.” She also cited the DOJ’s past refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a precedent for her action.

II. The Political and Ethical Critiques

Beyond the strict legal points, the exchange quickly moved to highlight a perceived political bias in Yates’s actions.

Perceived Bias: Kennedy’s commentary explicitly accuses Yates of acting out of personal antipathy toward Trump, suggesting she “despised” him (which Yates denied) and implying a double standard by pointing out that the DOJ only seems to “refuse to defend laws when a Republican signs them.”

The Role of Intent: Kennedy questioned whether “feelings are for Hallmark cards, not courtrooms,” critiquing Yates for grounding her legal judgment in her subjective interpretation of the administration’s intent rather than purely objective legal text, a tactic the commentator called “emotional interpretation.”

III. The Russia Interference Pivot

Kennedy abruptly shifted the topic to the 2016 election and Russia’s interference, using the intelligence findings to make a final, simple political point.

Russian Influence Attempt: Both Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agreed that the Russians “attempted to influence the outcome of the election.”

Lack of Efficacy: Clapper stated that the intelligence community could not judge whether the interference “did in fact influence the outcome of the election,” only that they saw “no evidence of influencing voter tallies.”

Kennedy’s Conclusion: Kennedy concluded with a dismissive remark that the Russians “tried and failed,” wrapping up his line of questioning by framing the entire controversy as an unsuccessful attempt at interference.