[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 2, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1456-S1458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             The Judiciary

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all have observed in recent years, 
we have witnessed a deeply concerning string of attacks, verbal and 
otherwise, against Federal judges. I am not talking about fiery 
speeches or statements by activists and organizations that happen to 
disagree with a particular ruling. That is their right under the First 
Amendment to the Constitution. What I am talking about are physical 
threats, including those from elected officials who want to control 
another branch of government and because they don't like the decisions 
that the judiciary is handing down in a given case.
  A few years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues filed a friend of 
the Court brief in the Supreme Court on a case involving gun rights. 
These Senators made a not-so-subtle threat to the Justices that unless 
the Court ruled in a certain way, the entire institution could be, 
quote, ``restructured.'' Some might call that coercion or intimidation.
  Last year, one of our Democratic colleagues took another jab, calling 
the Supreme Court's conservative majority ``stolen,'' ``illegitimate,'' 
and ``far right.''
  But without a doubt, one of the most shocking and reckless examples 
of what I am talking about occurred 4 years ago with New York's senior 
Senator, now the majority leader of the United States Senate. As the 
Supreme Court considered an abortion case, the Democratic leader went 
to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two Supreme Court 
Justices by name if they did not rule a certain way. He said:

       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.

  Now, it might be more understandable if these words were said by some 
person on the street who didn't have the sort of education and 
background and responsibilities of the majority leader of the United 
States Senate, but coming from the leader of this institution, those 
words were shocking and reckless and even dangerous.
  I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to the majority leader that when 
he talks, people listen. That is true for Senators in this Chamber. I 
know sometimes we think nobody is listening to what we say, but when we 
say something like that, people do listen. I have no doubt that some 
heard Senator Schumer issue unveiled threats against Supreme Court 
Justices, and they viewed that as permission to take action on their 
part--for example, the individual who was prepared to assassinate 
Justice Kavanaugh. No doubt this person of unstable mental mind heard 
some of the rhetoric and was moved to action. Thank goodness for the 
law enforcement officials who were able to interdict him.
  Last summer, as the Supreme Court considered another case involving 
abortion rights, an organization released the home addresses of the 
Supreme Court Justices, some of whom still have young, school-age 
children at home. They encouraged protesters to show up at the 
Justices' homes to harass and intimidate them, which just so happens to 
be a Federal crime. It was a disgusting breach of privacy and a massive 
security risk for these members of the Court and their families.
  It was sadly met with nothing more than a shrug by some of our 
Democratic colleagues. The Senate majority leader said he is 
comfortable with protests happening outside of the Justices' homes, 
even though it is a Federal crime.
  The White House confirmed that President Biden believes this is a 
constitutional right, to protest, even though it is a Federal crime. 
President Biden and Attorney General Garland have not seen fit to bring 
any charges against these protesters for their attempts to intimidate 
members of the Supreme Court at their homes at all times of the day and 
night. In fact,

[[Page S1457]]

some sources indicate that the Garland Department of Justice was 
discouraging U.S. marshals, who were ostensibly there to protect the 
Justices and their families, discouraging them from actually making 
arrests.
  For the Justices and their families, this was not a peaceful exercise 
of these protesters' First Amendment rights; these were moments of 
complete fear.
  A few weeks ago, Justice Alito--one of those members of the Court--
spoke to the Wall Street Journal about this period of intimidation, 
saying that Justices who were believed to be in the majority were what 
he called ``targets of assassination,'' no doubt referring to what 
happened or what nearly happened to Justice Kavanaugh. He said: ``It 
was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the 
Supreme Court decision in Dobbs--that is the abortion decision 
involving the Mississippi law. He said: ``It was rational for people to 
believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by 
killing one of us.'' As we know, there was an incredibly close call.
  When the man who said he intended to kill Justice Kavanaugh was 
arrested, he had a Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol. He had ammunition. He 
had a knife. He had a hammer, crowbar, and zip ties. He told 
authorities that his plan was to break into the house, kill Justice 
Kavanaugh, and then commit suicide. Thank God he was caught before 
anyone was harmed.
  This should serve as a clear warning that it is time to lower the 
temperature. When angry mobs gather on the Justices' front lawns and 
members of the High Court feel like there is a bounty on their heads, 
something needs to change. But instead of backing off, some of our 
colleagues appear to be doubling down.
  Earlier this year, the senior Senator from Oregon delivered an 
incredibly dangerous speech here on the floor of the Senate advocating 
that the Biden administration actually ignore a potential court order 
that he disagreed with. This was a senior Member of the legislature, 
the Senate of the United States--the world's greatest deliberative 
body--instructing the executive branch to disregard an expected order 
from a sitting Federal judge. That is, in effect, ripping the 
Constitution into shreds and throwing it out the window. The remedy for 
a decision that a judge hands down that you disagree with is to appeal 
that decision. That is the remedy.
  But now some of our colleagues have escalated their threats beyond 
mere rhetoric. Fifteen of our Democratic colleagues recently wrote a 
letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
subcommittee that is responsible for funding the Supreme Court. They 
recommended cutting the Supreme Court's budget if it fails to meet 
their demands to implement a preferred code of ethics. In short, they 
wanted to use the power of the purse to, frankly, coerce a coequal and 
separate branch of government. The Founders must have been rolling over 
in their graves.
  The threat doesn't just raise separation of powers concerns; it also 
raises serious security risks. It has been less than a year since 
Justices watched mobs of angry protesters assemble on their front lawns 
and an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly averted.
  In light of those security threats, the Senate unanimously passed a 
bill that I introduced, along with Senator Coons of Delaware, to extend 
security protection to the Justices' families. We unanimously passed 
that.
  How quickly some of our colleagues seem to have forgotten the dangers 
that Supreme Court Justices face every day. Threatening to defund the 
Supreme Court and its police protection in an enhanced threat 
environment is incredibly irresponsible.
  Sadly, the attacks on America's independent judiciary, our crown 
jewels, doesn't end there. Last week, the majority leader sent a letter 
to the chief judge for the Northern District of Texas to try to 
intimidate him into doing what the majority leader wants. The Senator 
from New York, Senator Schumer, is unhappy with the way some of those 
judges have ruled in recent cases in the Northern District of Texas, so 
he believes he should determine how cases are assigned in the Northern 
District of Texas.
  This new approach certainly is more nuanced than going to the steps 
of the Supreme Court to issue direct threats that ``you won't know what 
hit you,'' but his demand is the same: Do what I want or there will be 
consequences.
  Of course, this was made without any consideration for what is best 
for the functioning of the courts, access to justice for private 
litigants and indigent defendants, and the importance, again, of 
protecting the independence of the judiciary.
  Years ago, Justice Scalia wrote that it is one thing to have a 
parchment Constitution, one that offers all sorts of protection. He 
said that, in fact, the former Soviet Union had one of the best 
Constitutions on paper of any country in the world. But the difference 
between the Soviet Union and the United States of America is that we 
have an independent judiciary, a coequal branch of government.
  I am reminded of something Chief Justice John Roberts said a few 
years ago about our independent judiciary. He said:

       We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or 
     Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of 
     dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to 
     those appearing before them.

  I agree with the Chief Justice, but apparently the majority leader 
does not agree. He wants the chief judge for the Northern District of 
Texas to somehow reassign cases in a way to make sure that Biden judges 
or Obama judges get those cases and certainly not Trump judges or Bush 
judges. This turns the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary on its 
head, and it undercuts the legitimacy, in the eyes of most people, of 
what that separate branch of government is doing.
  We need an independent branch of government to enforce the 
Constitution and to say, as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. 
Madison--I think it was 1804--that it is emphatically the duty of the 
Supreme Court to say what the law is, and they do that by interpreting 
the Constitution.
  The majority leader has even threatened congressional action if the 
chief judge fails to meet his demands. But I would encourage the chief 
judge of the Northern District to do what Chief Justice Roberts did 
when he was invited to attend the circus that was the Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing this morning; that is, respectfully decline.
  We are not here to bully any judge into doing what the majority 
leader wants or what any of us want, which would ultimately undermine 
the legitimacy of the court because they don't like some of the 
rulings. Again, the remedy for a ruling and a decision you don't like 
is an appeal. It happens every day across the country.
  Our Founders deliberately designed the Federal Government with three 
separate but coequal branches. Through this system of checks and 
balances, they sought to prevent any one branch from forcing another to 
bend to its will.
  Unfortunately, many in today's Democratic Party are trying to blur 
the line between the legislative and judicial branches and act as if 
the judges are supposed to be partisan players. It doesn't matter what 
case is before a court or what the ruling ultimately is. Elected 
officials must lead by example and support the independence of the 
judiciary and, certainly, not actively attempt to undermine and subvert 
the legitimacy of the courts.
  I can't count the number of times I have disagreed with a court 
ruling, but I have never suggested that the judge or judges deciding 
the cases were illegitimate. I have never threatened judges with 
violence if they reach a decision I don't like, and I certainly have 
never advocated for defunding the judiciary if a judge fails to deliver 
my preferred outcome.
  As Justice Scalia said, an independent judiciary is the crown jewel 
of our Constitution and is absolutely essential to our democracy.
  And, while judges' decisions may not always be popular, they should 
be given due respect. The defamation and intimidation of Federal judges 
is dangerous both to the judges themselves and to the health of our 
constitutional democracy.
  It is time to lower the temperature and show respect for our 
Constitution, which means to show respect for the independence of the 
Federal judiciary.

[[Page S1458]]

  I yield the floor.