Transcription
Professor Franks, let me ask you, I I to I listened to to your and Miss Himway's testimony and Professor Turley, so I got part of it. Um, as I understand it, your position, Professor Franks, is that I think you use you use the word myth. It is a myth that the Biden administration used government to compel speech, private speech, but that the Trump administration is doing that. Is that a fair characterization?
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay. Do you think perhaps you're allowing your personal political beliefs to to uh to affect your objectivity here?
>> No, I do not. What is guiding my answers here is that I'm looking to see what the Supreme Court has said. You notice that in the testimony about the censorship industrial compact.
>> I got that part. I'm just No, but I've only got five minutes. You your answer is no. As I appreciate it.
>> Um, let let me ask you a couple questions. Um, you you wrote a law review article in December of 2023 for the New York University Law Review and you it was about the two cases, Breuan Supreme Court case and DOS. Remember that article?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Um, in this article you said, I'm going to quote 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. End quote. Did you say that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And then you went on to say, quote, "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." Close quote. Did Did I read that correctly?
>> I believe so. Thank you for reading.
>> Okay. And did you also say in that article, I'm going to quote again, um, quote, "By simultaneously expanding white men's right to kill and constricting women's right not to die, this Supreme Court, referring to the current United States Supreme Court, has turned the Constitution into a homicide pact as well." Close quote. Did you write that?
>> That sounds like me.
>> Okay. Um, in November of 2024, you tweet, don't you?
>> I'm not sure what the current terminology is for it, but yes, I am sometimes on the social platform that was formerly known as Twitter.
>> Yeah, you're on a lot, aren't you?
>> I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.
>> You try to be provocative on there, don't you?
>> Again, I'm not sure what the relevance.
>> Well, let me let me let me show you the relevance on November 7th, 2024 from your tweet. Here's a here's one of your tweets at 2:41 p.m. Quote, "The majority of Americans hate women. The majority of Americans hate women more than they love anything, including democracy." Close quote. Did I read that correctly?
>> I am not sure what this has to do with the subject matter of this.
>> Did you say it?
>> I do not have those words in front of me. I probably said something along those lines, but what is the relevant.
>> As Dallas right there?
>> Yes.
>> Um, but your political beliefs don't impact your feelings about President Biden or President Trump.
>> I don't have feelings about either of them. What I have.
>> To me like you your favorite feeling is anger. Let me ask you this. uh you you issued another tweet. This was in May of 2022. You've just been tweeting up a storm. You said, quote, "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. Close quote. Did I read that correctly?
>> Is there a question in this?
>> Did I read that correctly? That's.
>> Is there a question that is relevant to this hearing?
>> Did I read that correctly? Do you really think that the United States Supreme Court, you're an officer of the court, is guided by white male supremacy?
>> I believe that the first amendment prohibits the president and other officials for punishing people for.
>> Did you honestly say that professor and you expect us.
>> That the first.
>> As a democratic witness to take you seriously? Are you kidding me?
>> I believe that you should take.
>> You heard of curb your enthusiasm.
>> Here's my saying, curb my nausea. This exchange laid bare the growing tension between academic advocacy and legal objectivity in congressional hearings. The senator's line of questioning was simple but strategic if Professor Franks argues that claims of Biden era government compelled speech are a myth while asserting that the Trump administration engaged in such coercion. Can her testimony truly be separated from her openly expressed political views? To test that claim of neutrality, the senator entered Frank's own words into the record. Language from a 2023 Law Review article and multiple social media posts that framed Supreme Court decisions as products of racial patriarchy, white male supremacy, and a constitutional order that privileges white men's ability to terrorize and kill. The point. By repeatedly confirming the accuracy of her own statements, Franks effectively acknowledged that her public commentary casts the Supreme Court not as an institution interpreting law, but as an ideological engine of oppression. That framing, the senator argued, directly undermines her claim of detached, precedent-based analysis. The exchange deteriorated when Franks declined to directly reaffirm her statements, instead questioning their relevance. But relevance was precisely the issue. When a witness presents herself as an objective interpreter of constitutional doctrine, prior assertions that the court is motivated by racial dominance inevitably raise doubts about analytical neutrality. What made the moment striking was not the senator's skepticism, but Frank's refusal to reconcile her academic rhetoric with the role she was playing in the hearing. The hearing underscored a broader challenge facing Congress. When scholars move from critique to activism, the line between expert testimony and ideological advocacy becomes increasingly difficult to defend.