[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 118 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2293-S2294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, as I explained 
yesterday, an ideologically independent Supreme Court concluded its 
most recent term with a series of landmark rulings reaffirming 
fundamental constitutional principle. I would like to speak briefly 
today about one such example--the Court's 6-to-3 decisions striking 
down race-based preference in higher education admissions.
  For decades, colleges and universities discriminated against bright, 
young applicants on the basis of the color of their skin. The practice 
is not just wrong but wildly unpopular with a majority of Americans.
  Unfortunately, a series of misguided and increasingly confused 
Supreme Court precedents have allowed universities to continue this 
indefensible practice. Last month, that all changed. As the Chief 
Justice wrote for the majority, ``Our constitutional history does not 
tolerate'' the choice of race over merit.
  Most Americans already knew this to be true. More than half of our 
Nation's history has been a steady march toward more fully ensuring the 
promise of the 14th Amendment: equal protection under the law. Along 
the way, millions of hard-working and ambitious students have hoped for 
a fair shake on their academic qualifications, not the color of their 
skin.
  So last month's ruling marked an overdue and historic step. Racial 
discrimination has no place in college admissions. And thanks to the 
Court's action, more bright, young Americans will get a shot at writing 
their American dreams.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Supreme Court finished up its term 
recently by releasing several decisions that did not result in the 
Democrats' preferred outcomes. The hysteria was instant and, 
unfortunately, predictable.
  ``Disappointing and cruel,'' the Senate Democratic leader chastised 
one decision.
  ``Unacceptable and indefensible'' said another Democratic Senator.
  ``Horrifying'' was another response from a Democratic Senator.
  Then there was the President of the United States who said:

       This is not a normal court.

  Not a normal court--never mind the fact that this Court, like others 
before it, is composed of nine Justices duly nominated and confirmed in 
accordance with the Constitution, sitting and interpreting the law. 
Apparently, the fact that this Court has issued decisions Democrats 
disagree with makes this ``not a normal court.''
  Well, here is the list of thoroughly unradical decisions that have so 
horrified members of the Democratic party: The Court ruled that 
universities cannot make admissions decisions based upon the color of 
someone's skin. The Court ruled that the President does not have the 
right to create a massive student loan forgiveness program without 
clear authority from Congress. The Court ruled that the First Amendment 
does actually protect Americans from being forced by the Government to 
speak messages with which they disagree.
  These are the rulings that Members of the Democratic party consider 
``cruel and indefensible.''
  Continuing with the theme of Democratic hysteria, the Democratic 
leader said on Sunday that the Supreme Court had achieved ``dangerous'' 
and ``regressive'' policies ``completely at odds with what the vast 
majority of Americans want.''
  Now, I am not sure he has that quite right. I know the recent 
decisions are at odds with what the Democratic party wants, but the 
vast majority of Americans do not seem to be at odds with the Court's 
decisions. Take the Court's decision in favor of the First Amendment. 
It turns out that more Americans support that decision than oppose it. 
The same goes for the Court's student loan decision.
  Public opinion is decidedly in favor of the Court's decision ruling 
that the Constitution does not allow universities to make admissions 
decisions on the basis of race. One poll found that 52 percent of the 
American people approve--approve--of the Court's decision, while just 
32 percent disapprove. Another poll found that 59 percent of Americans 
approve of the Court's decision, while just 27 percent disapprove.
  It seems that the Court is a lot more in line with Americans than the 
Democratic party would like to think.
  Let me offer a few more statistics about this supposedly abnormal 
court.

[[Page S2294]]

Let's put things in context here for just a moment.
  Nearly half of the cases decided by the Supreme Court in this term 
were decided unanimously--almost half. That means that all of those 
``extreme'' Republican-nominated Justices and all of the Court's 
Democrat-nominated Justices were in unanimous agreement almost half the 
time.
  That is not all. At least one of the Court's so-called liberal 
Justices was in the majority in more than 80 percent of cases. That 
means that more than 80 percent of the time, at least one liberal 
Justice agreed with the Court's conservatives. It kind of makes the 
Supreme Court seem not very extreme. Eighty percent of the decisions 
had Justices from so-called both sides--conservative and liberal sides.
  Yes, there have been a handful of decisions where all of the liberal 
Justices have disagreed with the majority opinion. But that is hardly 
unprecedented. There have been plenty of cases in previous years where 
most or all of the so-called conservative Justices have disagreed with 
the majority opinion, and I don't remember Democrats having any 
problems with the legitimacy of those outcomes.
  Democrats' utter hysteria in the face of some pretty mainstream 
Supreme Court decisions could almost be amusing, but it is not, because 
Democrats' rhetoric and proposed response to a Supreme Court that 
issues decisions they disagree with has crossed a line.
  Now, I completely respect Democrats' right to be upset at and 
disagree with Supreme Court decisions. I disagreed with quite a few 
myself. But there is disagreement, and then there is attempting to 
undermine a branch of our government. And Democrats are engaged in the 
latter.
  Over and over, Democrats' responses go beyond disagreement or outrage 
at the Court's decisions and cross the line into attacking the Court's 
legitimacy.
  A number of Democrats have gone even further, directly or indirectly 
calling for expanding the Court or otherwise altering it to create a 
Court that will rule in line with where Democrats think it should be.
  It is difficult to overstate just how dangerous Democrats' rhetoric 
is. Democrats are not only fostering a sense of distrust about a Court 
that is completely legitimate in every way--save for the fact the 
Democrats don't like some of its decisions--that they are proposing so-
called solutions that would permanently and completely destroy faith in 
the Supreme Court as an impartial interpreter of the law.
  Do Democrats seriously imagine that their proposal to ``restore 
faith'' in the courts would do anything but further divide the American 
public and encourage one half of the population to regard the Court as 
an arm of the Democratic Party?
  Do Democrats seriously think they could pack the Court with their 
preferred Justices and not set off a permanent battle in which the 
party in power adds or subtracts Justices to achieve what it decides is 
balance?
  If Democrats have their way, we will be looking at a future in which 
the Supreme Court is nothing but an arm of the party in power in the 
other two branches, with the number of Justices constantly changing to 
achieve the governing party's preferred outcomes.
  There are names for systems of government in which the party in power 
controls the outcome in the courts. They are names like 
``dictatorship'' and ``despotism.'' Not getting your way at the Supreme 
Court is a pretty poor reason to undermine our system of government. 
But I am starting to wonder just how well Democrats understand our 
system of government, given their apparent belief that the outcome 
should always be in their favor. That is not the way it works in our 
democratic Republic.
  In our system of government, you win sometimes and you lose 
sometimes. When you lose, you fight hard to gain ground and persuade 
others of the rightness of your position. You do not--you do not--
attempt to rig the system so the outcome will always be in your favor. 
Hopefully--hopefully--you do not set out to undermine faith in the 
system by suggesting that any outcome that you don't like is not just 
incorrect but illegitimate.
  It is deeply disturbing that so many Democrats and Democratic leaders 
are participating in this campaign to attack the legitimacy of the 
Supreme Court. I hope--I truly hope--that cooler heads will prevail 
before they do permanent damage to our system of government.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.