Sen. Kennedy FURIOUSLY DESTROYS Biden’s A.G Sally Yates After Her Arrogant Response to his Questions
.
.
đź’ĄÂ Constitutional Showdown: Senator Kennedy Roasts Sally Yates in Fiery Hearing
A Senate hearing featuring Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates escalated into a constitutional showdown when Kennedy challenged Yates’s decision to refuse to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration. With his signature mix of Southern wit and legal precision, Kennedy dismantled Yates’s rationale, focusing on the fundamental principle of the separation of powers and who ultimately determines the constitutionality of government action in America.
The exchange, which quickly went viral, was framed by commentators as a “masterclass” in legislative questioning, exposing what critics perceive as a problematic overreach of personal and political judgment into the Department of Justice’s core legal duties.
The Pre-Trial: Establishing Political Bias
Senator Kennedy opened his questioning not on law, but on personality, immediately setting a tense tone by pressing Yates on her personal feelings toward the President she refused to serve.
Kennedy: “You don’t like Donald Trump, do you?” (0:03)
Yates: “I don’t like—I don’t respect the manner in which he has carried out the presidency.” (0:05–0:08)
Kennedy: “Okay. You despise Donald Trump, don’t you?” (0:10–0:11)
Yates: “No, I I don’t despise anyone, Senator.” (0:12–0:14)
This brief but critical exchange served to establish the narrative for Kennedy’s later critique: that Yates’s legal position was potentially rooted in personal political antipathy, rather than solely in legal principle. Yates attempted to diffuse the tension by suggesting Kennedy might be “frustrated with the language,” but Kennedy quickly countered: “I’m not frustrated. I’m happy as a clam” (0:20–0:22).
The Core Conflict: Who Decides What Is Unconstitutional?
The heart of the confrontation focused on Yates’s decision to instruct Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers not to defend the President’s executive order because she “believed it was unconstitutional” (2:10–2:16, 4:30–4:32).
Yates explained that her concern was over intent, arguing that defending the order would require DOJ lawyers to “argue that the executive order had nothing to do with religion” and was not done “with an intent to discriminate against Muslims”—an argument she did not believe was “grounded in the truth” (2:50–3:07).
Kennedy then cornered her with a foundational question of American law:
“At what point does an act of Congress or an executive order become unconstitutional? When I think it’s unconstitutional or you think it’s unconstitutional or a court of final jurisdiction says it’s unconstitutional?” (6:17–6:28)
Yates maintained that the Attorney General has a responsibility to say “no” if he or she believes the President is asking them to do something “unlawful or unconstitutional” (6:29–6:41).
Kennedy delivered the definitive response that sent the room into silence and murmurs:
“Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?” (5:34–5:37, 8:37–8:40)
Kennedy’s point was direct and legally sound: under U.S. law, Acts of Congress and Presidential orders are generally “presumed to be constitutional” until a court of final jurisdiction rules otherwise (5:46–5:49, 8:54–8:58). He argued that Yates essentially gave herself the authority of the judiciary, replacing legal process with personal conviction. This critique was summarized perfectly by a commentator: “America runs on law, not feelings. Feelings are for Hallmark cards, not courtrooms” (9:01–9:07).
Allegations of Political Double Standards
Kennedy further pressed Yates on whether her decision was a principled legal stand or purely a political decision wearing a robe (9:17–9:20). He brought up the precedent of the DOJ refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Yates confirmed (3:44–3:59).
While the refusal to defend DOMA occurred under a different administration and involved a different legal analysis, Kennedy implied a pattern of politically motivated selectivity: “Seems like y’all only refuse to defend laws when a Republican signs them” (9:25–9:29). This line of attack suggested that the principles Yates claimed to uphold were applied unevenly based on the political party of the officeholder.
The Russia Pivot: Seeking Definitive Answers
In a sudden shift, Kennedy pivoted to the topic of Russian interference in the 2016 election, again using his questioning to push the witnesses toward definitive, rather than speculative, conclusions.
Kennedy asked both Yates and former DNI James Clapper if the Russians “attempted to influence the outcome of the election?” Both replied with an unequivocal “Yes, sir. Absolutely” (6:54–7:00).
Kennedy then pressed: “Did do you believe that the Russians did in fact influence the outcome of the election?” (7:00–7:04)
Clapper responded by stating the intelligence community “could not make that call” as they lack the “authority, the expertise or the resources to make that judgment” (7:06–7:15), noting only that they saw “no evidence of influencing voter tallies” (7:16–7:21). Yates added: “I don’t know the answer to that. I think that’s part of the problem is we’ll never know” (7:27–7:31).
Kennedy closed this segment with a classic quip, summarizing the intelligence conclusion as: “So they tried, but didn’t succeed. Kind of like my first diet” (10:00–10:07).
Conclusion: Law vs. Personal Conviction
Senator Kennedy successfully steered the hearing away from a simple policy disagreement over an executive order and into a profound debate over the role of law and personal conviction in the executive branch. His central argument remained clear: while the Attorney General must refuse an unlawful order, an action is only definitively unconstitutional when the judicial branch—the designated “court of final jurisdiction”—says so.
By challenging Yates’s constitutional authority with his pointed, humorous, and legally precise questions, Kennedy defended the principle that the US government “is run on law,” not the personal “feelings” or ideological disagreements of unelected officials.
.
