[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 116 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S3286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Madam President, on another matter, all week long I have been 
discussing the historic Supreme Court term that wrapped up last month. 
Over the course of several months, a textualist and originalist 
majority issued the most consequential victories for our Constitution 
since the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of 
Education in 1954.
  It was the best Supreme Court term in generations.
  The Court corrected one of the worst moral and legal mistakes of the 
20th century and returned power to the American people to implement 
popular and commonsense protections for unborn life and bring America 
back inside the global mainstream.
  The Court handed down two historic wins for religious liberty, 
rolling back decades of infringement on the rights of Americans to 
worship and to raise families as they choose.
  The Court strengthened the rights of law-abiding Americans to defend 
themselves outside the home in a resounding reaffirmation of the Second 
Amendment.
  And the Court took a huge bite out of the unconstitutional 
administrative state and rolled back a big part of the Obama-Biden 
administration's totally illegal Clean Power Plan. With electricity 
prices skyrocketing on Democrats' watch, experts warning about 
impending summer blackouts, and more pain at the gas pump, the last 
thing Americans need is a holy war on fossil fuels that Congress never 
actually authorized.
  The Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a victory for 
working Americans and a reminder that the power to make law rests with 
their elected Representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.
  But, today, I want to talk about something that runs even deeper than 
these historic rulings. As in any high-profile term, last month, the 
Court arrived at rulings that some politicians and some citizens liked 
more than others. Goodness knows that I have been disappointed in my 
share of Supreme Court rulings over the years, including some extremely 
consequential cases. Going back decades, there have been countless 
times when the Federal judiciary has left conservative citizens feeling 
every bit as disappointed in a particular outcome as far-left activists 
seem to feel right now. After all, the courts don't exist to enforce 
any one political ideology or policy agenda. The Justices' sacred job 
is to follow the written text of our laws and Constitution wherever it 
may lead them and let the chips fall where they may.
  But there is something funny. I can't recall any time when our side, 
the right-of-center side of America, engaged in prolonged mob protests 
outside judges' private family homes. The attacks on the judiciary, on 
this fundamental institution of our society, seem to only run in one 
direction.
  A few weeks ago, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic 
leader teamed up to issue a, frankly, unhinged statement. Most of the 
top Democrats in the country followed suit. Their reckless statements 
did not stop--indeed, barely even took a pause--when a disturbed 
leftwing person very nearly tried to assassinate a sitting Justice.
  Frankly, the inflammatory tone of all of these attacks echoed the 
furious attacks on the Court, ironically, from the Democrats of the day 
after Brown overturned Plessy back in 1954. We are hearing absurd calls 
from the far left to have Congress politically persecute individual 
Justices because of their views of the law. They want to take off Lady 
Justice's blindfold and scare the Court into becoming politically 
partial.
  Well, this didn't start now. Sadly, it has been years in the making. 
Along the path to this moment, the far left has stoked reckless 
rhetoric, and we have heard it from Democrats in elected office, like 
in the amicus brief from several Senators who declared the Court 
unwell--unwell--and warned it to ``heal itself before the public 
demands it be `restructured.' '' In other words, do what we want you to 
do or we will change the makeup of the Court--or in the named threats 
from the Democratic leader himself that sitting Justices would--listen 
to this--``pay the price'' for ruling in ways he didn't like. He said 
that over in front of the Supreme Court.
  We have spent a year and a half now hearing Democrats say over and 
over and over again that a core principle of democracy is accepting the 
legitimacy of an outcome when you don't like it. Sound familiar? Our 
colleagues need to practice what they preach.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.