‘Good Riddance’: Sen. Kennedy Lambasts Justice Jackson Over Universal Injunction Dissent
‘Good Riddance’: Sen. Kennedy Lambasts Justice Jackson Over Universal Injunction Dissent
Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he was “proud” of the Supreme Court following a Friday ruling that he argued must be good for the country—if only because it appeared to deeply anger Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Appearing on Fox’s Faulkner Focus with anchor Harris Faulkner, Kennedy applauded the Court’s 6–3 decision in a case involving birthright citizenship, one of several recent rulings that have drawn sharp backlash from the left.
The ruling effectively struck down lower court injunctions blocking executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump. Faulkner pointed out that the decision could impact more than just Trump’s birthright citizenship order, potentially setting a broader precedent.
“So this has bigger implications than just that one topic of birthright citizenship,” said Faulkner. “Your reaction to this?”
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” said Kennedy. “There’s no basis in statute. There’s no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There is no basis in English common law for universal injunctions.”
He continued, saying that, “Judges who just dislike what Congress and a president, any president, has done, just made them up. And good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court.”
He then pointed to Justice Jackson’s dissent, which has become a major focus of discussion since the rulings were issued.
“It’s a very extensive ruling. You can tell it from Justice Jackson’s dissent,” he said. “She’s mad as a bag of cats, and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
After reviewing Trump’s Truth Social post on the matter, Faulkner asked Kennedy to elaborate. He clarified that the Court didn’t rule directly on birthright citizenship, but rather on what he called the “illegal” use of universal injunctions—an authority he said that “federal judges just made up.”
“You know, if they disagree, you know, I’m sorry. Fill out a hurt feelings report. Buy a comfort rock,” Kennedy said. “But they can’t just say, I disagree and I’m putting the entire action by another branch of government on hold because I don’t like it.”
Kennedy added that “both sides have abused it, and by it I mean universal injunctions. The Democrats more than the Republicans, but both sides of abused it. And it’s illegal. There’s no basis for it in law. And I’ve just been waiting for the Supreme Court to do this.”
“I mean, anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept of universal injunctions,” Kennedy went on.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority judgment for the court. Brown dissented along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
In her opinion, Barrett wrote: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ … But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Barrett also directly attacked the argument made by Jackson, a Biden appointee.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett, who taught law at the University of Notre Dame for years, added.
“In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too,” she wrote
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
WASHINGTON — A ferocious battle over the soul of American democracy erupted on cable news this week, proving once again that the clash over election integrity is reaching a boiling point.
During a high-stakes segment on Fox News' top-rated program The Five, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov ignited an intense firestorm by sounding the alarm on the Republican-backed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act).
Her warning was sharp, direct, and unapologetic: This isn't just a simple Voter ID bill—it’s a bureaucratic roadblock designed to keep millions of legal Americans away from the ballot box.
"Far Beyond Voter ID": Tarlov Sounds the Alarm
While GOP proponents frame the SAVE Act as a common-sense measure to restore trust in elections, Tarlov shredded that narrative live on air, dissecting the fine print of the proposed federal mandate.
Under the bill, anyone registering to vote in federal elections would be legally required to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a physical U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, or naturalization papers.
"People hear 'Voter ID' and think it’s just showing a driver's license at the counter," Tarlov argued. "It’s not. This bill demands physical proof of citizenship upfront. Millions of everyday, hard-working American citizens do not have a valid passport sitting in a drawer or immediate access to an official birth certificate. This creates an artificial barrier to a fundamental constitutional right." without instant paperwork access.
Integrity Guardrail or Voter Suppression? The Great Debate
The fiery television debate reflects a massive political rift tearing through Capitol Hill and statehouses across the country.
The Conservative Defense: Republican sponsors and conservative commentators insist the measure is vital to national security and sovereign elections. They argue that verifying citizenship at registration is a necessary safeguard to prevent non-citizens from ever slipping onto federal voter rolls.
The Progressive Pushback: Critics like Tarlov argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, strictly policed, and exceptionally rare. Opponents caution that adding heavy administrative hurdles will unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters—particularly students, low-income citizens, rural voters, and women whose names have changed due to marriage.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
As the debate over voter access versus election security intensifies, the SAVE Act has turned into a major political litmus test.
Is requiring physical proof of citizenship a mandatory protection to guarantee that every vote is lawful? Or is it an unnecessary, red-tape nightmare that punishes legal citizens for not having their paperwork in order?
One thing is certain: as long as voices like Jessica Tarlov continue to push back on prime-time television, the fight over who gets to vote—and how hard it is to do so—is far from over.
Jessica Tarlov Says Trump Has 35% Approval Rating in Most Polls
Supporters of the bill strongly disagree, saying it is designed to protect election integrity by preventing non-citizens from registering to vote. Opponents argue the existing safeguards are already sufficient and fear the measure could unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters. Is the SAVE Act a necessary election safeguard, or does it create unnecessary barriers to voting?
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
NEW YORK — The set of Fox News’ hit show The Five has seen its fair share of heated shouting matches, but what went down behind the scenes this week turned a political debate into an outright crime scene.
In a shocking move that has sent shockwaves through Manhattan media circles, network executives have suspended co-host Jessica Tarlov indefinitely following an alleged physical assault on a crew member during a commercial break.
The reason for the explosive violent outburst? A camera operator made the fatal mistake of laughing out loud at one of her political talking points.
The Laugh That Triggered a Rampage
According to multiple insider accounts and studio witnesses, the situation escalated with terrifying speed. During a taped segment discussing presidential leadership, Tarlov aggressively defended President Joe Biden, passionately declaring him to be "one of the most alert and engaged presidents in American history."
While her conservative co-hosts on The Five usually counter her hot takes with eye-rolls and sharp rebuttals, it was an off-camera crew member who couldn't hold back.
A veteran camera operator reportedly chuckled out loud at the statement—a moment of candid disbelief that pushed Tarlov entirely over the edge.
"She just flew completely off the handle," one studio staffer revealed under the condition of anonymity. "Jessica has always been hyper-sensitive to pushback, but this was different. The moment she heard that laugh, her face changed. She lost control, lunged at the crew member, and turned physically aggressive. It took two floor managers to pull her off."
Fox News Responds: A Mandatory "Cooling-Off" Period
Network executives acted swiftly to control the fallout. Within hours of the incident, Tarlov was escorted from the building and informed of her immediate, indefinite suspension.
While the network hasn't closed the door permanently—noting they will consider a formal appeal at a later date—the consensus inside the building is clear: She is out for the foreseeable future.
In a internal memo, management framed the suspension as a mandatory "cooling-off period" to review safety protocols and investigate the physical altercation. However, staff members say the atmosphere on set remains deeply rattled.
Beyond Political Delusion: When Rhetoric Turns Violent
Political commentators across social media were quick to seize on the scandal. For years, Tarlov served as the resident liberal voice on The Five, regularly taking fire from a panel of staunch conservatives. But critics argue that defending the indefensible finally broke her composure.
To many viewers, claiming Biden was "sharp and alert" in 2024 or 2025 was already seen as an exercise in extreme political bias—but resorting to physical violence when called out on it marks a dangerous new low.
"This isn't just about partisan bias anymore," noted one media analyst following the story. "When a commentator becomes so consumed by political delusion that a simple chuckle triggers a physical assault, you've crossed a line from political debate into total instability."
What’s Next for The Five?
As Fox News searches for a temporary replacement to fill the liberal chair, the network faces intense scrutiny over workplace safety and on-set decorum.
Will Jessica Tarlov ever walk back onto the set of The Five, or has the "token leftist" finally burned her last bridge in cable news?
This story is actively developing. Scroll down to view real-time updates, legal analysis of the alleged assault, and reaction clips from around the media world!
