Sen. John Kennedy (R-La. ) testified yesterday during a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on the mistreatment of global rulings. took clear aim at Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Chris Hayes ‘ partner. What followed was more of a sharp trade than an entire intellectual slog. Of course, that’s what often transpires with Kennedy.  ,
Advertisement
As Kennedy began to rebuild her trust piece by piece, Shaw quickly emerged as a political exploit, stammering and backpedaling as Democrats invited her as an expert.
Kennedy confronted Shaw over her contradictory opinions on general injunctions, condemning them when used against Democrats before abruptly embracing them under President Trump. He surgically blasted her hypocrisy and yet mocked her immediate affection for these decisions as if they now “taste like pumpkins pie.” Liberals are probably wishing they had chosen a different testimony because it was a workshop in exposing the media’s double standards.
However, Kennedy wasn’t the only one to turn Shaw into suet.
Josh Hawley’s change was just as harsh, as did Sen. Hawley. After Shaw began to offer a vague, scientific defence of her shifting opinions, Hawley went right for the throat.
This$ 20 million research, ICYMI: This$ 20 million investigation revealed what Democrats had no idea what everyone else knew.
We shouldn’t have any global rulings, Hawley said, as long as there is a Democratic president in office. If there is a Democratic leader, this is perfectly acceptable, appropriate, and required.
Shaw made an effort to resist. Before Hawley cut in once more, she began,” That is not—.
How does our system of law continue to operate on those rules, Professor? He asked the question directly.
Shaw fumbled to get back, declaring,” I think a system in which there are meaningful]… considerations on the president is a very risky system of law.”
Advertisement
That is when Hawley pounced. That’s not what you believed when Joe Biden was in office, he said. You claimed that it violated the principles of democracy, criminal fairness, and the rule of law.
He continued, citing her previous criticism of” judges looking like officials in clothes” as” judges looking like lawmakers in robes,” adding that she had cautioned the fundamental legal system. But now that Trump is back in the White House, she was unapologetically ok with using the same methods.
If all of that is successful, Hawley said, “You’re good with it if it works.”
Shaw vehemently argued that” the Supreme Court agreed universally with me in that event,” but Hawley didn’t.
He retorted,” No, no, no — we’re talking — no, no.”” No, no, no, no,” he said. They “did not reach a decision regarding the global lawsuit.”
As Shaw delved into procedural jargon, Hawley summed it up:” We’ve now gone six minutes, and Senator Kennedy had you for six or seven,” Hawley said. You were unable to identify a second ethical basis.
Finally he delivered the decisive punch.
The owner of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is all that has changed in nine months, according to Hawley. Our system of government may endure if it’s going to be elections all the way over, according to” I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle pretty much like that individual].”
Sen. @HawleyMO Discloses Professor’s Hypocrisy
” We should have no global injunctions as long as it is a Democrat president in office,” said one critic.” If it’s a Republican senator, that’s perfectly acceptable and appropriate.” How can those rules still apply to our system of law? twitter.com/xaehUKTAOI
— Mr Producer ( @RichSementa ) June 3, 2025
Advertisement
Shaw always had a chance in the political lawfare that was exposed thoroughly and unrelenting.
Progressives embarrassed themselves by portraying Kate Shaw as an objective professional despite her obvious bias. Republicans like Kennedy and Hawley helped her trust fall off with ease because of her twice normal on global injunctions: opposing them under Biden and supporting them under Trump.  ,
In the end, one point was clear: Democrats didn’t defend global rulings consistently because they don’t believe in constitutional principles but rather in results. They cheer when injunctions are used to thwart Democrat policies. They blab when the same device is being used against their personal goals. For them, it’s not about the rule of law; it’s about electricity. And that’s why their disagreements start to get ugly when somebody demands something from them.
Add our VIP membership to help us promote brave news that holds power accountable if you’re as sick of republican double standards as we are. Your account helps us continue to find the truth about the hypocrisy, amplifying tones like Kennedy and Hawley. Use the code FIGHT to become a VIP and support us for rule over politics now for a 60 % cheap.
