George Washington Law Prof. Testimony Brutally Implodes As Senators Question Her Tweets And Writings
Earlier this month, I wrote about how Democrats in Congress are facing the lowest approval ratings in history. With witnesses like this, it seems they’re determined to keep it that way.
Earlier this week on Capitol Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled “The Censorship Industrial Complex,” focusing on issues of free speech and censorship. When it came time for the Democrats’ witness to testify, many Republicans raised concerns about her past statements—both in tweets and published writings—on free speech and the Constitution, questioning her claims of impartiality.
During the hearing, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) referenced several of the witnesses, Professor Mary Anne Franks’, past statements and pressed the George Washington law professor in a tense exchange. He challenged her ability to remain impartial on censorship issues under Donald Trump versus Joe Biden, particularly after she defended her claim that President Biden was better for the First Amendment than Trump.
Watch the full exchange here:
Here are some highlights from the transcript:
(Transcript has been edited for clarity and punctuation)
Senator Kennedy:
You reviewed the two cases—Bruen, the Supreme Court case, and Dobbs. Do you remember that article?Dr. Franks:
Yes, I do.Senator Kennedy:
In this article, you said—and I’m quoting your words— “Taken together, these two cases demonstrate that the Supreme Court has embraced the use of the Constitution as a tool of racial patriarchy.” Did you say that?Dr. Franks:
Yes.Senator Kennedy:
Then you went on to say— “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.” Did I read that correctly?Dr. Franks:
I believe so. Thank you for reading.Senator Kennedy:
And did you also say in that article— “By simultaneously expanding white men’s right to kill and constricting women’s right not to die, this Supreme Court—the current United States Supreme Court—has turned the Constitution into a homicide pact as well.”
As the exchange grew more heated, Kennedy kept hammering her on what he saw as a lack of impartiality.
Senator Kennedy:
Your political beliefs don’t impact your feelings about President Biden or President Trump?Dr. Franks:
I don’t have feelings about either of them.Senator Kennedy:
Seems to me like your favorite feeling is anger. Let me ask you this: you issued another tweet, this was in May of 2022. You’ve just been tweeting up a storm. You said— “There’s a reason why the conservative-dominated Supreme Court thinks the Constitution did not contain a right to an abortion but is convinced that it contains an individual right to possess firearms. And that reason is white male supremacy.” Did I read that correctly?Dr. Franks:
Is there a question in this?Senator Kennedy:
Did I read that correctly?Dr. Franks:
Is there a question that’s relevant to this hearing?Senator Kennedy:
Do you really think that the United States Supreme Court—you’re an officer of the court—is guided by white male supremacy?Dr. Franks:
I believe that the First Amendment prohibits the president and other state officials from punishing people for—Senator Kennedy:
Did you honestly say that, Professor? And you expect us—as a Democratic witness—to take you seriously? Are you kidding me?
The clashes with Republican senators didn’t end there. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) challenged Professor Franks in another tense exchange, confronting her over a past statement in which she referred to free speech as a “neo-Confederation agenda.”
🚨@Eric_Schmitt grills Democrat witness and woke zealot Mary Anne Franks at a “Censorship Industrial Complex” hearing —
— Franks once described free speech advocacy as a “neo-confederate agenda” — and believes Trump is crushing the First Amendment.
SCHMITT: "I just I think… pic.twitter.com/PJmtVTD2lb
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 25, 2025
In another exchange after the Kennedy grilling, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) was up next and she immediately went after Professor Franks.
Here is the main exchange:
(Transcript has been edited for clarity and punctuation)
Senator Blackburn:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to each of you for taking your time to be here today. Dr. Franks, we’re here to talk about free speech, correct?Dr. Franks:
Yes.Senator Blackburn:
And we are here to talk about that being a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, correct?Dr. Franks:
Yes.Senator Blackburn:
Okay. And the Supreme Court plays an essential role in guaranteeing those constitutional rights, correct?Dr. Franks:
Yes.Senator Blackburn:
Now, I want to talk to you about a tweet you posted in January 2024. You said, “The Supreme Court is a death panel.”
Is that your opinion?Dr. Franks:
In the context of this hearing, I think it’s important to emphasize why I am here—which is to talk about my views on the First Amendment.Senator Blackburn:
No, No, No, No. That’s not what I asked you. Do you think the Supreme Court is a death panel?Dr. Franks:
In the context of the cases I was referring to—not for free speech—no, that was not the context of that particular comment.Senator Blackburn:
Okay. Well, it appears that you see the Supreme Court as a death panel, and that is the same kind of rhetoric we continue to hear from some on the left who are trying to villainize justices who are doing their job. Let me ask you this: Do you look at Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson as members of the death panel or is this just the justices that you disagree with?
Dr. Franks, unsurprisingly, went on to once again blame Donald Trump and his administration for threatening judges, journalists, and civilians.
Rather than focusing on how to expand and protect free speech, Democrats chose to present yet another elitist professor with radical views on the First Amendment—someone more interested in smearing those she disagrees with than offering a balanced perspective, all while claiming impartiality.
Earlier this month, I wrote about how Democrats in Congress are facing the lowest approval ratings in history. With witnesses like this, it seems they’re determined to keep it that way.
Note: the headline has been updated to reflect that Dr. Franks is at George Washington Law, not Georgetown as previously written. It has been corrected.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If you don’t answer the question you actually do answer the question.
.
But should be held in contempt anyway
She turned my stomach.
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.” Did I read that correctly?
ironically its obama who justified murdering americans without due process in his overseas murder of an american citizen with a drone and even someeee of his followers declared
this now makes it justifiable to do the same to americans in america without any due process
Well, her comment is 100% true because, as most Democrats understand, no black men actually own guns.
Sorry, couldn’t keep a straight face — can you let me have another take?
in a way you are correct
no black criminals actually own the guns b/c according to the lefty mayors
all the guns are imported and the actual blk males who do the murdering are just pawns of the wht male and of course wht females
Bullshit. 0bama did not murder anyone. He ordered an enemy soldier killed, in exactly the same way that every president at war has ordered thousands of enemy soldiers killed. It has never been the practice of the US military, or indeed any military, to check enemy soldiers’ passports before killing them. An enemy soldier has never been considered to have any privilege against being killed simply because he holds a US passport.
Absolutely. There were US citizens who volunteered for the Wehrmacht during WWII. No one worried about their due process rights during combat.
then if you are correct
why did obama himself have to legally justify the action?? against just one person…a particular act not the generality of a “war”
He didn’t have to. It was his policy to personally approve each drone strike. Most presidents don’t micromanage war like that. Imagine FDR demanding to personally approve every bullet fired by a soldier, or every bomb dropped by a bomber!
The fact that the target was one person is not at all unusual in war. Every time a sniper takes a shot at someone he’s targeting one person.
Compare it to our assassination of Yamamoto. That seems to have been Nimitz’s decision, and not to have been referred back to FDR for his approval. And don’t you dare try to claim that it would have been different had Yamamoto had an American passport.
Judicial President and Commander in Chief Boasberg was not available for comment.
He was too busy giving civil rights to known members of a Venezuelan Cartel foisted upon the US by Maduro.
Apparently he believes a review of passports of TdA and MS 13 thugs and enemy combatants not in uniform. They have rights as non Americans committing crimes in the US, but Americans who allegedly are enemy combatant aren’t.
The entire problem is that they are not “known members” of TdA. They’re alleged members, and they deny it, so they are entitled to a hearing to determine whether they are.
You would be singing an entirely different tune had 0bama or Biden decided to arrest Trump, allege that he was an enemy alien, and ship him out of the country without any chance to test that allegation before a neutral finder of fact.
The only thing I liked about Obama is that he droned plenty of Middle East terrorists. Good times.
There were a few other things to like about him. He has good taste in food. His space program was pretty good. And he must have at least a few other good points, but I can’t think of any more.
While I agree with the crux of this article, I don’t think this hits hard with the public as no one cares to watch this boring mess.
I think this is more about fishing for ad/fundraising bait.
Sadly, you are likely correct, or at least, not far off the mark.
Senator Kennedy performs well in these sorts of hearings, but that’s just about it. Other than entertaining video clips, little ever results from his performances.
If Kennedy has ever been responsible for real and substantive legislation that helped the country reverse its course from the Leftist Cliff, I certainly haven’t heard anything about it.
If it’s true that the average attention span is 8.6 seconds, if an average web visitor reads 20% of the text on a webpage or if an average viewer watches maybe 2.7 minutes of an internet video- then of course information has to be delivered as quick “bait.”
The average person doesn’t seem to be paying attention to much, unless checking email 30 times an hour or lifting their smartphone 1500 times a week counts.
It’s impressive that participants in the hearing kept at it without wandering off. Maybe there were treats? My dog can pay attention for a long time waiting for treats.
Perhaps the fact that ice cream eventually melts explains what doomed the Biden presidency.
Perhaps, but, I think it’s still important for prominent Dhimmi-crat fanatics, in whatever field they work in, to be exposed as arrogant, obnoxious, intemperate, dishonest and unrepentant fanatics. It’s important to show the public how pervasive and cancerous leftist intellectual, political and cultural rot has been, across a wide swathe of American institutions and industries.
It gets recycled online and finds a wider audience. Especially when these get spliced together as ‘greatest hits video’. Lots of platforms out there who show this type of thing reaching a wider audience than we may anticipate.
This women needs to spend some quality time in countries without the rights our constitution provides, I suggest Somalia and South Africa. Two countries where white christian males are definately not in charge and rights for citizens are somewhat fluid.
I used to keep track of the universities these loons are from (GWU in this case). I stopped because it’s much easier to keep track of the universities they are NOT from.
Yes, namely that it contains actual language specifically protecting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, and nothing whatsoever about a right to abortion. You’d think that a professor of law would consider that sort of thing significant in a legal analysis, but this is Mary Ann Franks we’re talking about here.
Backed up by the 10th Amendment which says, “If whatever you want to do ain’t listed herein, then you [fedgov] can’t do that either.”
Overview of America,
https://jbs.org/video/featured/overview-of-america/?mc_cid=aab99f82ce&mc_eid=0e027076b5
Franks is an unhinged lunatic.
What a manifestly miserable and imperially arrogant crone.
“Is there a question in this?”
By her transparent hostility and her lack of civility and tact in her exchange with Senator Kennedy, the harridan demonstrates her status as a fanatical, embittered and vindictive Dhimmi-crat zealot.
Is there any other kind of Dhimmi-crat, LOL?
Does this woman have a clue what the real world is like? She keeps talking about white men killing people. Has she ever read the statistics about who commits the most killings in the US? I believe 46% of murders are committed by black men mostly against other blacks. Knowing these numbers, wouldn’t it be prudent for whites to carry in public? She reminds me of the little boy who climbed into the polar bear cage because Coca-Cola shows them being sweet and friendly. He was eaten! She is as clueless as that little boy about who the monsters are in our society.
Her wig is really distracting.
This Dr. Franks seems annoyed that the Senate Committee is not keeping quiet and letting her drone on and on with her histrionic nonsense like a classroom full of students would be forced to in a university. Sorry, Mary Ann, but this time, these guys prefer Ginger to you.
A comment from 2020 (edited):
There is no right to assemble in order to commit crimes, all lawful assemblies must be peaceable. The Left has the idea that “rights” must be “limited” in order to prevent “crimes,” but this is not so. Rights are self-limiting. The moment a person begins to harm an innocent person or his property, a “right” is no longer being exercised – a “crime” is being committed. There are already laws against crimes.
Because the Left does not make this distinction, it leads to the conflation of “rights” with “crimes.” This is why the Left says such things as “The NRA wants to protect your right to murder as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.” “Murder” is always a crime, but in the leftist’s mind “murder” can be (at least in some circumstances) the result of an “abuse of a right,” when in fact a murder is always the result of a crime. People aren’t arrested for “abusing their rights,” they’re arrested for committing crimes.