Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
'Not a serious person': Pete Hegseth hedges to Congress on honoring court rulings
For the second time in two weeks, the Pentagon chief didn’t want to say whether he was willing to follow the judiciary’s orders.
There’s a lot to say about Pete Hegseth’s latest hearing, but I’m stuck on the fact that he hedged — again — on whether he'd follow court rulings he disagreed with. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-06-18T18:46:29.674Z
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/not-serious-person-pete-hegseth-hedges-congress-honoring-court-rulings-rcna213797
It was that kind of hearing for the former Fox News host, who struggled once again with questions he appeared unwilling or unable to answer. Do military personnel have the ability to arrest and detain protesters? Hegseth wouldn’t say. Did he coordinate decisions with a right-wing social personality? Hegseth wouldn’t say. If the president wanted to deploy Marines to Chicago and New York City over the objections of state and local officials, would he carry out the order? Hegseth wouldn’t say.
It reached a point where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada found it necessary to tell the Cabinet secretary that he is “not a serious person,” which seemed more than fair under the circumstances.
But perhaps most important was Hegseth’s testimony about honoring court rulings. The New York Times summarized:
This actually came up twice over the course of the proceedings. After Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii asked if Hegseth would follow a court order, he said, after dismissing the relevance of lower courts, “If it goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll see.”....
Soon after, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts pursued a similar line of inquiry, and Hegseth again suggested he might be inclined to ignore lower courts, although this time he said he’d “abide” by Supreme Court decisions.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lrvd4jkj722j
....In case this isn’t obvious, let’s make a few things clear. First, federal court rulings are not optional. The military cannot decide to ignore judicial directives at will, even if the decisions come from lower courts.
Second, district and appellate courts don’t “set” national security policy, but in this country, there’s a long history of jurists weighing in on the legality of national security policies. Indeed, it’s part of the courts’ job.
And third, in context, the Democratic senators were asking about domestic troop deployments, which should have nothing to do with national security policy.
There were already widespread concerns about the Trump administration and its embrace of an authoritarian-style vision. Hegseth’s testimony went a long way toward making those concerns worse.
It reached a point where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada found it necessary to tell the Cabinet secretary that he is “not a serious person,” which seemed more than fair under the circumstances.
But perhaps most important was Hegseth’s testimony about honoring court rulings. The New York Times summarized:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested to a Senate committee that he might ignore court orders regarding the domestic use of troops, if ordered to do so by President Trump. ‘I don’t believe district courts should be setting national security policy,’ Mr. Hegseth said as Democrats questioned him about deployments of military personnel to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids. Pressed further, he said he would honor a Supreme Court ruling.
This actually came up twice over the course of the proceedings. After Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii asked if Hegseth would follow a court order, he said, after dismissing the relevance of lower courts, “If it goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll see.”....
Soon after, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts pursued a similar line of inquiry, and Hegseth again suggested he might be inclined to ignore lower courts, although this time he said he’d “abide” by Supreme Court decisions.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lrvd4jkj722j
Link to tweet
....In case this isn’t obvious, let’s make a few things clear. First, federal court rulings are not optional. The military cannot decide to ignore judicial directives at will, even if the decisions come from lower courts.
Second, district and appellate courts don’t “set” national security policy, but in this country, there’s a long history of jurists weighing in on the legality of national security policies. Indeed, it’s part of the courts’ job.
And third, in context, the Democratic senators were asking about domestic troop deployments, which should have nothing to do with national security policy.
There were already widespread concerns about the Trump administration and its embrace of an authoritarian-style vision. Hegseth’s testimony went a long way toward making those concerns worse.