CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings was not having it when network host Abby Phillip tried to speak condescendingly to him Monday night while discussing federal judges blocking President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
Trump ordered a freeze on issuing federal government grants so spending could be reviewed for fraud and waste.
Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island then directed the administration to “immediately restore frozen funding” across the federal government.
Further, he ruled Monday that the administration was not fully in compliance with his order and threatened criminal contempt judgments to officials who did not comply, Politico reported.
“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell decided. “These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the [temporary restraining order].”
Other district court judges have blocked Trump’s federal government employee buyout program and denied access to Treasury Department records to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, according to the Associated Press.
Jennings responded to the moves by the district court judges on “News Night with Abby Phillip” Monday, saying, “I think there’s a difference between saying whether you’re complying with the law, and then you have these individual district court judges setting, effectively, broad federal policy that is specifically reserved for the president of the United States. I think we do have a constitutional crisis, and it’s being caused by these judges.”
If there’s a “constitutional crisis” it’s caused by activist federal district judges with narrow jurisdictions usurping the powers of the presidency. @GovChrisSununu and I take on the left last night on @cnn. It’s just more lawfare against Trump. pic.twitter.com/yvZPXyXaGK
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) February 11, 2025
“What are you talking about?” Phillip doubtfully asked.
“They’re not here to tell us how to spend the money. They’re not here to set broad federal policy. That is the president’s job, as elected by the people,” Jennings replied.
“These judges are supposed to be settling discrete, specific matters, not policy setting. I think [Vice President J.D.] Vance is right,” he added.
Vance, who is a Yale Law School graduate, posted Sunday on social media platform X, “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.
“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.
Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
Jennings argued, “It is the executive branch’s job to figure out how to spend money, once it is appropriated by Congress.” .
Former New Hampshire GOP Gov. Chris Sununu agreed, saying, “The court cannot say, ‘You have to spend these dollars today.’”
CNN legal analyst Elie Hong soon jumped in the fray, asking Jennings, “If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?”
“If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it,” Jennings answered.
Sununu again concurred, saying, “You just can’t compel the executive branch to spend the dollars. You can’t do that.”
Philip then waded in, calling Jennings’s position “bizarre.” She questioned, “When the court says, ‘Congress … appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this,’ why can’t Trump comply with that?”
“So you’re saying a judge should decide how and when money is spent for years and not the president of the United States?” Jennings responded to Phillip.
“Scott, let me explain it a little bit more slowly,” she answered somewhat mockingly.
Scott Jennings: “If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely DEFY IT”
“There’s a difference between broad policy decisions and discrete disputes between parties. That’s the difference. If I want a policy… pic.twitter.com/FJoKGEWIm4
— Unlimited L’s (@unlimited_ls) February 11, 2025
“You don’t have to talk to me like that,” Jennings retorted. “I have a position on this and you have an opinion. We can disagree.”
“Listen to me, because you’re not listening, and you’re making claims that are not connected to the facts,” Phillip continued in a berating tone.
“Maybe you are,” Jennings fired back.
He then proved he was listening by restating her position that a district judge should be able to say, “So while we litigate this, and I’m a judge, and I’m in charge of the executive branch and you’re not?”
“Forget it. I totally disagree,” Jennings said.
Jennings certainly did not deserve the treatment Phillip gave him.
Who knows? Maybe she thinks she’s intellectually superior to Jennings as a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But he is a former fellow there, as well as at the University of Chicago.
Further, Jennings served in public affairs positions in George W. Bush’s White House and has decades of experience in politics as a reporter and working on campaigns.
Jennings knows where he stands, and he rightfully did not allow Phillip to talk down to him.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
