Heated Senate Moment: Kennedy Slams Witness for Attacking Supreme Court Justices

“Gag Me With a Spoon”: Senator John Kennedy Confronts Law Professor Over Alleged ‘Evil’ Supreme Court Rhetoric in Viral Senate Showdown

The Senate Judiciary Committee has long been the arena for some of the most consequential debates in American history, but rarely does it witness an exchange as visceral and pointed as the one that occurred recently between Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and a prominent legal scholar. In a scene that felt more like a courtroom drama than a legislative hearing, Kennedy utilized his trademark blend of southern charm and surgical precision to dismantle a witness’s credibility, ultimately accusing them of contributing to the erosion of the American judicial system. At the heart of the conflict were two explosive issues: the rise of nationwide injunctions and the increasingly personal nature of the rhetoric used against the United States Supreme Court.

The hearing, titled to address the limits of judicial authority, began with what seemed like a standard inquiry into the rule of law. Kennedy opened the floor by asking the panel of experts a fundamental question: “Would any of you advise a client to defy a federal court order?” The response was a unanimous “no,” a foundational acknowledgment that the functioning of a civil society depends on the predictable enforcement of judicial rulings. However, the atmosphere shifted when one witness, a law professor, added a narrow qualification, suggesting that under “sufficiently egregious” circumstances, one might consider alternatives. This small opening was all the leverage Kennedy needed to launch into a broader critique of what he views as the politicization of the legal academy.

The conversation quickly turned to the controversial topic of nationwide injunctions—legal rulings by a single federal judge that can block a law or executive action across the entire country. While these were once rare, they have become a standard weapon in the political arsenal of both parties. Kennedy pressed the witnesses on the abuse of this power, leading to a rare moment of bipartisan agreement. Experts from both sides of the aisle admitted that “forum shopping”—the practice of filing lawsuits in specific districts where a favorable ruling is expected—is a rampant problem utilized by both Republicans and Democrats. “There are no clean hands here,” Kennedy remarked, highlighting a system where the law often seems to follow the political whims of the person wearing the robe.

However, the hearing took a truly “nuclear” turn when Kennedy moved from legal theory to the personal conduct of the witnesses. Turning his attention to Professor Shaw, Kennedy brought up a podcast appearance from April 2024. With a thick stack of transcripts in hand, the Senator alleged that the professor had referred to members of the Supreme Court majority as “evil.”

“Which justices were you talking about?” Kennedy demanded, his tone shifting from inquisitive to accusatory.

The professor, appearing visibly shaken, initially claimed not to recall using the word and suggested it might be a “transcription error.” Kennedy, undeterred, read the quote verbatim, which discussed Justice Elena Kagan’s ability to “control the opinion’s future distortion by her evil colleagues.” The ensuing back-and-forth was a masterclass in political theater. Kennedy expressed his disbelief and “embarrassment” that such rhetoric was being taught to law students, famously exclaiming, “Gag me with a spoon!”

The Senator’s critique went deeper than just a single word. He accused the witness of situational ethics, arguing that their stance on judicial power shifts depending on who occupies the White House. Kennedy noted that when a president the professor agreed with was in power, they viewed nationwide injunctions as “judges acting like they’re politicians in robes.” But now, with a president they dislike, those same injunctions suddenly “taste like pumpkin pie.” This accusation of blatant partisanship is what Kennedy believes is “part of the problem” facing the country today—a legal elite that treats the Constitution as a flexible tool for political ends.

Beyond the fireworks, the exchange touched on several substantive proposals for reform. One of the primary suggestions discussed was the implementation of an automatic stay on nationwide injunctions, coupled with an expedited right of appeal. The goal of such a policy would be to ensure that a single district judge cannot paralyze national policy for months or years while the case winds its way through the appellate system. Supporters argue this would restore a measure of stability to the law, while critics worry it could leave unconstitutional policies in place for too long.

The hearing also explored the boundaries of Article III of the Constitution, which defines the power of the federal courts. Kennedy and several witnesses argued that there is no historical or common-law basis for a single judge to issue orders that extend beyond the specific parties involved in a case. They suggested that politicians have “helped judges” create this power out of thin air, turning the judiciary into a “crass political actor” in the eyes of the public.

As the footage of the exchange began to circulate online, it sparked a firestorm of discussion across social media platforms. Supporters of Senator Kennedy praised his willingness to confront the “ivory tower” of legal academia, while critics argued his approach was overly aggressive and ignored the legitimate reasons judges might issue broad rulings to protect civil rights.

What remains clear, however, is that the debate over the role of the courts is no longer just about legal precedents—it is about the very soul of the institution. When legal scholars, who are officers of the court, use language like “evil” to describe the highest jurists in the land, it signals a breakdown in the professional decorum that has traditionally held the system together. Senator Kennedy’s “nuclear” confrontation served as a stark reminder that if the public loses faith in the neutrality of the courts, the rule of law itself may be the ultimate casualty.

In a time of deep national division, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s latest clash highlights a painful reality: the courts are no longer seen as a refuge from politics, but rather as another front in the ongoing war for the future of the American republic. Whether through legislative reform or a return to judicial restraint, the path forward remains uncertain, but the urgency of the conversation has never been greater.