Kennedy Torches Anti-Constitution Professor in Brutal Senate Exchange [WATCH]

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) took sharp aim at law professor Mary Anne Franks during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Censorship Industrial Complex on Tuesday, challenging her controversial views on the U.S. Constitution.

Franks, a professor at George Washington Law School and author of The Cult of the Constitution, was questioned by Kennedy over past statements she had made that sharply criticized the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Kennedy, known for his sharp wit and measured demeanor, carefully prepared for his questioning, presenting a methodical and pointed attack on Franks’s radical leftist positions.

Elon Musk Called This Financial News ‘Terrifying’

As the hearing unfolded, Kennedy’s questioning not only revealed Franks’s disdain for the Constitution but also her deeply partisan views, which she failed to defend convincingly.

Franks, who teaches First and Second Amendment law, has gained attention for her progressive stances, particularly her views on gun rights and the Constitution.

The exchange between Kennedy and Franks centered on her past comments regarding the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, especially concerning issues like the right to bear arms and women’s rights.

Kennedy began by quoting Franks’s previous statements, starting with a Law Review article she published in September 2023.

FREE Concealed Carry Gun Laws & Reciprocity Map

In that article, Franks claimed that the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Bruen and Dobbs cases demonstrated that the Constitution was used as a “tool of racial patriarchy.” Kennedy confronted her, asking, “Did you say that?”

Franks responded affirmatively, “Yes.”

Kennedy pressed on, quoting another statement from Franks: “When the Supreme Court declares that there is a constitutional right to armed self-defense in public, it openly embraces and promotes a culture that privileges white men’s ability to terrorize and kill those that they perceive as threats.”

Franks admitted she had written those words, saying, “I did. Thank you for reading it.”

Kennedy’s questioning continued with another quote from Franks, where she claimed that the Supreme Court, by expanding gun rights for men while constricting women’s rights, had turned the Constitution into a “homicide pact.”

Franks again confirmed her position, stating, “That sounds like me.”

As the questioning continued, Kennedy quoted some of Franks’s more radical social media posts.

One tweet stated, “The majority of Americans hate women more than they love anything, including democracy.”

Another tweet attacked the conservative-majority Supreme Court, claiming, “There’s a reason why the conservative-dominated Supreme Court paints the Constitution as [it] does not contain the right to an abortion. But it’s convinced that it contains an individual right to possess firearms. And that reason is white male supremacy.”

Franks, who appeared increasingly defiant throughout the questioning, did little to back down from her positions.

Kennedy, however, was not swayed by her smugness and concluded his exchange with a final remark: “Here’s what I’m saying: ‘Curb my nausea.’”

This radical witness thinks that the “majority of Americans hate women more than they love anything” and that the Supreme Court upheld an individual right to bear arms because of “white male supremacy.”

Curb my NAUSEA. pic.twitter.com/jstBHiLltk

— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) March 25, 2025

As the hearing drew to a close, Kennedy had effectively exposed Franks for what he referred to as “an officer of the court” who held radical, anti-Constitution views.

Franks’s responses, filled with dismissiveness and defensiveness, failed to convince Kennedy or the audience of the credibility of her position.

Kennedy’s questioning served as a reminder of the ongoing ideological battles in America over the interpretation of the Constitution, with left-wing academics like Franks advocating for a more radical rethinking of the nation’s foundational laws.

Franks’s refusal to engage seriously with the arguments against her views only strengthened Kennedy’s case against her, painting a clear picture of the divide over the future of the U.S. Constitution.

American Made Patriotic Apparel – Save 15% with Promo Code MERICA

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.