[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1530-H1533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             A THREAT TO TWO OF OUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be 
recognized to address you here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Having listened to the gentleman ahead of me, Mr. Louie Gohmert and 
some of the discussion that he had, I would pick up with the beginning 
here, Mr. Speaker, with one of the places where he left off, and that 
is what happened before the United States Supreme Court yesterday and 
the statements that were made by the minority leader of the United 
States Senate.
  I may have a bit of a different perspective than some in this House 
or Senate or across this land, but here is the language that was deemed 
offensive from Senator Schumer. I watched the video, and he was 
pointing. He pointed at the United States Supreme Court, and he used 
the names of two Supreme Court Justices. He said this: ``I want to tell 
you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the 
whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if 
you go forward with these awful decisions.''

                              {time}  1330

  That was stunning. It was stunning to hear two Justices called out in 
that fashion before the Supreme Court. And I know that there was a 
crowd over there that was happy to hear those words. But as a 
constitutionalist and former chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee 
in the House of Representatives, I am troubled by the effort to try to 
sway judges through what appears to be verbal intimidation before the 
Supreme Court.
  I have stood on those same steps and delivered any number of 
speeches, but I always confine them to the constitutional principles 
that were involved. I wanted the Justices to hear my speech. I didn't 
want them to ever hear it as a threat. I wanted them to hear it as a 
rational approach in a way as if I were actually arguing before that 
Supreme Court, before that Bench.
  They are all well-learned and very, very capable people who are 
deeply steeped in our Constitution and in case law. They have their 
different philosophies, and that is clear. We often see a 5-4 decision 
on the Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought when I first arrived in this town a number of 
years ago, I looked forward to going over to the Supreme Court to hear 
what I expected to be the profound constitutional arguments before that 
Bench. So I began going over there for some of the important cases, 
with that expectation. I recall sitting there, listening to an argument 
before the Court, and I understood--actually, this would be the Kelo 
decision before the Supreme Court. The Kelo decision is the decision 
that I believe amended the Constitution by the Supreme Court decision.
  It was this. Let's see, New London, Connecticut. There was property 
there that was owned and utilized by owners who didn't want to sell 
that property to the developers. The local government wanted that 
property in the hands of the developers because they would develop that 
property into, I believe, a shopping mall, and then the taxes would be 
the revenue going into local governments. So local governments had an 
incentive in encouraging the development of the property, but the 
property owners sat there with a constitutional guarantee in the Fifth 
Amendment of the Constitution that says: ``nor shall private property 
be taken for public use, without just compensation.''
  That was the guarantee that, first of all, only governments could 
confiscate property. They needed to maintain that within their own 
possession, and it has to be for a public use. It can't be for a 
private use. It was a private business that they handed that property 
over to in New London, Connecticut.
  Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the argument, I expected the argument 
would go back to the very language of the Fifth Amendment, and that 
would be argued, perhaps, certainly, on both sides. And I come down on 
the side of: The Constitution means what it says, and it means what it 
was understood to mean at the time of ratification by the people who 
voted to ratify it.
  We can't go back and assign different definitions to words or simply 
say that it is a living, breathing Constitution that can adapt itself 
to changing times. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a provision 
to amend this Constitution provided by our Founding Fathers. The 
Constitution is an intergenerational, contractual guarantee between one 
generation of Americans to the next generation of Americans.
  So, I hoped to hear those--in fact, expected to hear--those arguments 
before the United States Supreme Court. What I heard instead were 
arguments that were made to Justice O'Connor, and I think they 
considered her to be the swing vote. And she came down on, I believe, 
the constitutional side of it in the end. But there were just little 
tweaks that had to do with her background.
  She was raised on a ranch. I think it is a B&B ranch down in southern 
Arizona, and I think it goes across into New Mexico, as I recall. I 
read her books years ago. And some of the ranch land that she grew up 
on was part of the Gadsden Purchase that came in right at the end of 
the U.S. and Mexican war.
  But growing up on a ranch, property values matter, and property 
rights matter, and water rights matter in that part of the country. And 
her book is replete with those kinds of narratives. It is a really 
interesting way to get some insight into Justice O'Connor. But she 
understood this case in a way I didn't know until later.
  But I came down here to the floor, and we brought a resolution in the 
House of Representatives, a resolution of disapproval to what was 
called the Kelo decision. In that Kelo decision, it upheld the decision 
of local government in New London, Connecticut, to confiscate private 
property, houses and residences that had a deed, and to take that land 
and compensate them for what they deemed the value was--condemnation--
and hand them over to the private investors so they can take that

[[Page H1531]]

land, develop it, and make money with it. That is completely contrary 
to the reason that we have that guarantee within our Fifth Amendment.
  As I listened to those oral arguments and saw how they were focused 
on Justice O'Connor, I understood what was going on. And that is, they 
weren't profound constitutional arguments; they were personalized 
arguments that were designed to get to the psyche of the swing Justice 
who was there. Of course, it wasn't Justice O'Connor, as it turned out.
  By the way, I have been critical of some of her decisions--not on 
this one.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put this narrative in the Record because I 
think she is worthy of some significantly positive comments. And one of 
the decisions that she had made--a different one, obviously, I was 
railing away on my disagreement with the rationale that Justice 
O'Connor had come down with. And so someone in the room said: You 
shouldn't criticize her until you walk a mile in her shoes.
  And I said: I would be happy to walk a mile in her shoes. I will walk 
a thousand miles in her shoes. Appoint me to the Supreme Court, and I 
will walk with her. And I bet you I can convince her.
  I made some remark like that. And then, as I was talking, I said: You 
know what? If I can't do that, why don't I just invite her to dinner?

  So I followed through. I gave my word I would do that, and I went 
back to my desk in my office and sat down and wrote a letter to Justice 
O'Connor that invited her to a dinner, just to sit down, have a 
conversation, get to know each other, be civil with each other, and 
listen to each other's philosophical discussion.
  I sent the letter over there, not expecting to get an affirmative 
response. But what I did get was an invitation to come to her chambers 
and do a lunch there. I don't remember the year, but I know the date 
was March 18 of whatever year it was, in the earlier part of the 
previous decade.
  So, I went over at that time, and she had a lunch all prepared. She 
had baked a pie that was, I presume, for me because it was fresh. It 
was cut and served right there in her chambers. And we had a delightful 
discussion.
  She took me from each of the portraits of the Chief Justices and 
walked me through the history of the Courts, from the beginning all the 
way up to what was current at the time.
  When I left that gracious dinner with Justice O'Connor, I decided she 
has a good judgment on her; she has a good set of character; she has a 
compassionate heart, a deep understanding of history and law. And 
disagreeing with her, that is all it is, just disagreeing with the 
rationale.
  But I am forever grateful that I took the trouble, and I am really 
grateful that she accepted the request that I made and then invited me 
over there to dinner.
  So, I wanted to put that in, that our Justices are human. And when 
they get threatened, those threats sometimes cut deep, and the family 
feels that.
  These threats that were delivered yesterday in front of the United 
States Supreme Court were threats that, might I say, intimidate judges. 
The judicial branch of government, the American Bar Association, 
everybody involved in that feels that. And they pride themselves in 
their independence.
  But I better conclude the Kelo decision before I get too far from it. 
In any case, the Kelo decision came down, and they allowed for the 
confiscation of private property handed over to other private interests 
in order to generate tax revenue for local government.
  That case still stands. But I was furious that they would do such 
damage to the Constitution in a 5-4 decision. By the way, Justice 
Scalia has said that he believes that case will be overturned one day.
  But we brought a resolution of disapproval to the floor. It is the 
only time that I know we have done that and spoken out in that fashion 
on a Supreme Court decision. I noticed that at that time the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, came down to give his speech. I was 
queued up next.
  Mr. Speaker, I sat right here with my notepad ready to take notes 
because I expected to get up and rebut most everything that I heard Mr. 
Frank say. We found ourselves in disagreement on issue after issue, so 
it was my full expectation that when he was finished talking, I would 
have a page full of things to stand up and rebut. That has been my 
style, and we had had many debates like that.
  But as I listened to Mr. Frank that day, I realized he had exactly 
the same opinion that I had. He expressed it a little bit differently, 
but he came down in support of the resolution of disapproval and in 
support of the Constitution and in support of the property rights that 
are there in the Fifth Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, when I stepped up here to this particular podium, my 
speech really was to reject the decision made by the Supreme Court. And 
when I spoke that in the Record, I said effectively what they have done 
is they have pulled the words out of the Fifth Amendment ``for public 
use.''
  ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just 
compensation,'' and the effect of it was to pull the ``for public use'' 
out of there. Now, the effect of the Fifth Amendment after the Kelo 
decision just says ``nor shall private property be taken, without just 
compensation,'' which means the government can't come in and take your 
property away from you, unless they write you a check, but they can 
give it to anybody they want to in the private sector.
  Whatever their motive might be, it was approved by the Supreme Court 
with the Kelo decision. And I think that will be abused at some point 
and a more reasonable Court may be seated at that time and restore the 
Constitution on the Kelo decision.
  But my real point here is that we can't be seeking to intimidate the 
Court. They are human. Justice O'Connor--a gracious heart and a nice 
lady. And we used to have receptions over there with the Committee on 
the Judiciary and members of the bench just to take some of the 
temperature down between the natural disagreements that exist between 
the legislative branch and the judicial branch of government.

  Mr. Speaker, when you have the minority leader, the most powerful, 
highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate, go stand before 
the Supreme Court, point his finger at that building that was behind 
him and say, ``I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, 
Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. 
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful 
decisions.''
  Going forward with an awful decision means Chuck Schumer has already 
decided what he thinks the Court decision is going to be on the 
requirements that are part of the, I will say, the abortion laws that 
are coming out of Louisiana. And I have been one of the lead voices on 
pro-life issues here in this United States House of Representatives.
  There is on my lapel a heart that represents the heartbeat bill. It 
is a bill that I introduced in the previous Congress, and that bill 
protects unborn babies. It essentially says this: If a heartbeat can be 
detected, the baby is protected.
  And we know that the heartbeat is the first, certain sign of life. 
When that heart starts to beat, you know that there is a live baby 
there. You can't call it anything else. It is a live baby.
  And this little baby has all the components of a growing human being. 
It just needs to develop them out to full size and to full term.
  And anybody who has picked up and held--especially a loved one--a 
newborn baby and gazed with awe at the miracle in their hands has to 
know that that baby's life didn't begin at the moment of birth or at 
the moment of first breath and that that baby's life began well before 
a minute before the baby was born.
  Mr. Speaker, I know when I held my firstborn son, I looked at him in 
awe. There was an aura about him. The miracle was in my hands. And I 
thought: How can anybody take his life now? He is a few minutes old. 
How can anybody take his life now? How could they take his life a 
minute before he was born, or an hour before, or a day, or a week, or a 
month before he was born? Or a trimester or three trimesters before he 
was born? At what moment did his life begin? Because human life is 
sacred in all its forms.

                              {time}  1345

  And we only have to choose when did life begin. It is not that hard a 
question. Because it is a continuum; it is a

[[Page H1532]]

gradual growing continuum from the moment of conception on.
  But that heartbeat says this is a live baby here. And when that heart 
stops, we call that death. When the heart starts, we know that is life. 
Even though life began at the moment of conception, medically, we can't 
pinpoint that precisely enough, but I am willing to go there if we can 
get there.
  Right now, we are at heartbeat. And in the last Congress, I was able 
to get 174 cosponsors, and those 174 cosponsors all signed on with an 
expectation that we would protect all babies. When a heartbeat could be 
detected, the baby is protected.
  We didn't make exceptions for rape or incest or any other provisions. 
These babies are sacred. If there was a crime committed that resulted 
in conception, that is on the rapist; that is not on the baby. And 
those babies are as precious to God as my own grandchildren are to God; 
and, of course, my grandchildren are extraordinarily precious to me.
  So I hope one day we get to that and that question.
  But as we move on, with this superaggressive utilization of freedom 
of speech and Senator Schumer, I look back at some of this discussion. 
And Chief Justice Roberts had a response, which is exceptionally rare, 
to have a statement come out of the Supreme Court. But out of the Chief 
Justice, he said, and I quote: ``Threatening statements of this sort, 
from the highest levels of government, are not only inappropriate, they 
are dangerous.'' And Justices, quote, ``will continue to do their job, 
without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.''--Chief Justice John 
Roberts.
  I appreciate that language that the Justices will ``continue to do 
their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.'' That 
language will live a long time in the way that that is adeptly put 
together, and that is how it needs to be.
  If we want to convince the Supreme Court to take a new look at 
things, we need to make the constitutional arguments, Mr. Speaker, not 
the threatening arguments. And where I come from, when somebody 
threatens you, that means that you are done doing business with that 
person, and they are very unlikely to get cooperation.
  But there is another part of this that, even though there would be a 
measure of justice involved if the decisions made in the Supreme Court 
went against the interests of Senator Schumer, I would like to 
reiterate here into this Congressional Record, and I hope it echoes 
across this land, that, if you think you are going to get even with 
somebody, the result in this business, whether it is in the 
legislative, the executive, or the judicial branch of government, if 
you think you are going to get even with somebody, you invariably hurt 
the wrong people.
  And so that is not an avenue that has merit, and I hope that and I 
expect that that wisdom exists within all of our Justices, all nine of 
them over there, that payback to Schumer can't be in the cards from any 
decision that would come down from the Court, it has got to be balanced 
and objective, as described by Chief Justice Roberts, and that they 
``continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever 
quarter.''
  I believe the Justices will stick to that, and I am hopeful that 
Senator Schumer will learn not to utilize those tactics anymore.
  This is the American Bar Association, the ABA. Their comments came 
down to this. They said they are ``deeply troubled'' by Schumer's 
remarks, that ``there is no place for threats--whether real or 
allegorical.''
  And then the ABA, American Bar Association, continued with this: 
``Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the 
President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the . . . 
independence of the judiciary and the personal safety of judicial 
officers. . . . ''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that is true. I know that when you turn up 
the dialogue and you hear this radical rhetoric coming out of elected 
officials in particular, things do happen out in our society. And the 
Chief Justice is concerned that there could be acts of potential 
violence that could be stimulated by that kind of dialogue.
  And I am hopeful that--Senator Schumer seemed to dial it down on the 
floor of the Senate today. That is good. I didn't notice that he had 
called upon people to refrain from violence and refrain from threats. 
He did say that he is from the Bronx and they talk a little more 
clearly there than other places. I don't doubt that. But this language 
went to the world, and the world saw it today, Mr. Speaker.
  And so I am hopeful that Senator Schumer will call upon his 
supporters to calm down, be logical, make constitutional arguments, and 
refrain from that kind of rhetoric.
  And here are the consequences. I had some serious rhetoric applied 
against me over the last 1\1/2\ years, and each of those situations 
that were--a good number of them were manufactured firestorms that were 
fired at me.
  But also, we saw Members of this House of Representatives that went 
forward and said, when people go into a restaurant, when they stop to 
get gas and you see them there, if they happen to be--I am not sure 
exactly how they defined it, but if they happen to be conservatives, go 
confront them, make their lives miserable. That kind of discussion was 
delivered from people who sit over on this side of the aisle, and it 
had its physical results.
  It had its physical results, at least in my case, where I sat down in 
a restaurant last April, and from completely outside my peripheral 
vision, I was assaulted. That individual has been convicted of 
assaulting a Federal officer, or a United States Congressman. There is 
a provision for that.
  And, by the way, today, he goes before a Federal judge in Sioux City 
for sentencing.
  So I won't comment any more on that, because I don't want to be 
accused of seeking to influence a decision that may or may not have 
been made, but it is ironic that I am here today having this discussion 
on Senator Schumer while there is an individual being sentenced for 
assaulting me back in Iowa, which I believe is a clear result of this 
kind of radical rhetoric that was poured out.

  And it wasn't based on truth, in my case, when they attacked me. It 
was planned. It was orchestrated. It was ginned up. And then you have 
people out there that take that seriously.
  And so that is what happened that day, and the sentencing is taking 
place today. I will trust the judge to make an objective decision. I 
have written my opinion in longhand and sent that to the court for 
their consideration. That is where I will leave that recommendation. I 
have had my chance to weigh in.
  But let's take this a little further, Mr. Speaker, and that is on 
this concept of freedom of speech. Now, there are those that want to 
censure Senator Schumer, and it sounds like Senator Hawley is going to 
introduce a censuring motion tomorrow in the Senate.
  I am of the opinion that the most important freedom we have is a 
robust freedom of speech and that, if we let that be diminished by 
intimidation tactics, let alone by any kind of laws that would perhaps 
be found unconstitutional--but watching the Kelo decision, maybe not be 
found unconstitutional.
  I want the body to understand this, Mr. Speaker, that freedom of 
speech is a precious, precious right, and our Founding Fathers 
understood that if you can't speak, if you can't speak freely, then you 
can't convey your ideas at all. And then when you can't convey your 
ideas, they never get tested against anybody else's ideas or 
embellished or supported by other people's ideas, and that means, then, 
that human knowledge would diminish, it would atrophy, and it would 
essentially stop forming around us.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned a robust nation that would be 
regularly and constantly engaged in discussions of public policy, like 
we are in Iowa as the first-in-the-Nation caucus, like New Hampshire 
is, and let's just say South Carolina is among those States, too, where 
there is an intense focus on politics, free discussion.
  I have spent time in Cuba and learned that they don't have that 
freedom. They are afraid--even among their families sitting around the 
table, they are afraid to speak to each other because there might be an 
informant among them that has been hired by the, at that time, Castro 
administration. So they don't speak to each other about those things. 
They don't criticize. They accept what government serves up to them.

[[Page H1533]]

  That is what King George wanted to happen in this country. And if our 
predecessors here, the revolutionary Founding Fathers, had accepted the 
edict from King George, we would have never developed this great Nation 
that we are. We would be stuck back in the mud somewhere back there, 
because our ideas wouldn't have been brought forward. They wouldn't 
have been tested against each other, then creating other new ideas.
  And, you know, we are the Nation that produces more patents, more 
creativity, than any other nation in the world by far. We are so good 
at this and we create so much with our intellectual freedoms that we 
have that are tied into freedom of speech that the Chinese look to us 
and they steal a half a trillion dollars worth of American intellectual 
property every year--a half a trillion dollars. And that doesn't 
include what they steal through cyber. That is called IP piracy.
  I have been over to China. Years ago, I wrote a bill from Beijing 
that called upon the U.S. Trade Representative to conduct a study to 
determine the value of U.S. intellectual property that is stolen by the 
Chinese, apply a duty on all products coming to the United States from 
China in an amount equal to that loss, and then collect that and 
distribute it to the rightful property rights holders. That was a bill 
then. It is still a good idea today, but they have accelerated their 
piracy.
  Mr. Speaker, to give you an example of how this works, we know a 
little bit about how freedom of speech, thought, and expression works 
in the United States because we see--actually, in the past, we have 
seen a more robust freedom of speech on our campuses. Today, they are 
diminishing freedom of speech on the campuses. They are defining things 
as hate speech and trigger words and safe places. We don't need that. 
We have got to be strong enough to face language and let it flow and 
then accommodate ourselves in a way that we are not influenced if it 
isn't logical or rational.
  The Greeks, for example, in their city-states, would banish a 
demagogue for 7 years from the city-state because they didn't like what 
he had to say, and that wasn't constructive.
  But what is constructive is our freedom of speech, our young people 
sitting in college, sitting up all night long discussing metaphysics 
till the Sun comes up, new ideas: What is the limitation on what we can 
do with science? with math? with space travel? All of those things that 
have made America the leader in the world, they are all tied back to 
freedom of speech.
  If you can't speak, you can't express your thoughts. You can't just 
hold your thoughts in your head and think you are going to do something 
good with them. If we had taken Albert Einstein and sat him into a 
phone booth and said, ``We will let you out when you write the theory 
of relativity,'' first of all, it never would have been created; second 
of all, nobody could have understood it. You have got to have the 
interactivity of minds.
  And people will say: We have the Second Amendment; therefore, we are 
never going to lose our freedom of speech. I don't see anybody using 
the Second Amendment to defend their freedom of speech, and I don't 
recommend that they do. We have to utilize our freedom of speech and 
push back when it is diminished.
  So I am not calling for a sanction on Senator Schumer. I am saying 
this:
  Senator Schumer, you know what you said. You know whether it is right 
or wrong. You have to operate in an arena over there and get reelected 
by the people in your district. Let we, the people, decide. Not a 
leader here in the Senate, not a leader here in the House, but let we, 
the people, decide.

  And, in fact, as a former chairman of the Constitution Committee, the 
three branches of government, there are tensions between each of those. 
Our Founding Fathers didn't envision that they would be equal. They 
believed the judicial branch would be the weakest of the three. But 
they knew there would be tension as that territory got marked out, and 
there is always going to be a gray area where there is a little bit of 
a tug-of-war over who has what territory.
  But in the end, if you analyze it--I can make your argument for the 
legislature, even the House and the Senate. I can make it for the 
executive branch. I can make it for the judicial branch. But in the 
end, if any branch of government gets out of whack, that means out of 
sync with the American people, we, the people, solve that problem in 
the election box.
  Sometimes it takes time. But that is the best solution is for we, the 
people, to make that decision, not a decision that sanctions freedom of 
speech, diminishes freedom of speech, or intimidates people so that 
they don't utilize their freedom of speech, because we have got to 
remain the most creative society in the history of the world, and in 
doing so, we will be the most successful people also in the history of 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________