[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 100 (Thursday, June 13, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4064-S4066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats made their latest move yesterday 
in their yearslong campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme 
Court. Their failed attempt to gain unanimous consent on a so-called 
Supreme Court ethics bill was yet another attempt to bully the Court 
into ruling the way Democrats want.
  With decisions in multiple controversial cases coming from the 
Supreme Court over the next few weeks, including today, I expect this 
was just the prelude to yet another dramatic Democrat temper tantrum if 
things don't go Democrats' way. I say ``if things don't go Democrats' 
way'' because it is a funny thing--when the Supreme Court decides 
things Democrats' way, we hear a lot less about the legitimacy of the 
Supreme Court.
  Take the Court's decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. 
Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., in which 
most

[[Page S4065]]

of the Court's Republican appointees sided with all of the Court's 
Democrat appointees to deliver a decision that Democrats supported.
  Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Democrat ranking member of the House 
Financial Services Committee, had this to say:

       With this decision, our nation's justices have decided to 
     put consumers first and reject the baseless attacks led by 
     extreme MAGA Republicans and greedy payday lenders to 
     hamstring the work of the CFPB and put consumers in harm's 
     way.

  Or take the Court's decision in Moore v. Harper, in which half of the 
Court's Republican appointees sided with the Court's Democrat 
appointees to deliver a decision that was embraced by the Democrat 
leader here in the U.S. Senate.
  Here is what he had to say:

       Today, those who support democracy, fair elections, and the 
     rule of law can stand a bit taller. Today's ruling reaffirms 
     the longstanding precedent that respects our constitutional 
     system of checks and balances.

  Again, that is from the Senate Democrat leader. Funny how he didn't 
mention anything in that statement about how the Court had been 
captured by, in his words, ``the fanatical MAGA right.''
  I could go on, but all of this leads to one inevitable conclusion, 
and that is that, to Democrats, the only legitimate Court and the only 
legitimate Court decisions are the ones that line up with Democrats' 
policy preferences.
  It has become clear that Democrats are willing to do whatever it 
takes, up to and including intimidation, delegitimization, and Court 
packing, to ensure that the Court rules in line with where Democrats 
want it.
  This isn't about ethics or legitimacy or concern for our democratic 
institutions, as Democrats would have you believe; this is about power. 
Democrats are apparently perfectly willing to undermine a fundamental 
part of our system of government for their political ends, because, 
let's be very clear, it is not the Supreme Court that is undermining 
the legitimacy of this essential institution; it is Democrats with 
their unhinged campaign against a duly-constituted Court composed of 
nine duly-confirmed Justices nominated by a duly-elected President; a 
Court, it is worth pointing out, that in its last term ruled 
unanimously--that is right, unanimously--roughly half of the time and 
90 percent of the time--let me repeat that: 90 percent of the time--had 
at least one Democrat-appointed Justice in the majority.
  Mr. President, it would be nice if we could just dismiss Democrats' 
hysteria as the tantrums of a party that has discovered that sometimes 
in a democracy, you don't get your way, but Democrats' concerted effort 
to undermine the legitimacy of the Court is deeply troubling because of 
the widespread consequences it could have.
  The last thing we should be doing at a time of deep political 
divisions is to be shaking Americans' faith in the legitimacy of our 
institutions and the impartiality of the Court. Do Democrats really 
want a public with less faith in the government?
  Perhaps they do or perhaps they don't care, as long as their policies 
are ascendant and they can maintain a hold on power. But they should 
care.
  As I said, should things not go entirely the Democrats' way in the 
coming weeks of Supreme Court decisions, I expect we are going to hear 
a lot. We will hear a lot more hysteria about the Court's supposed 
hijacking and illegitimacy.
  But I hope the Justices and the American people will tune it out, 
because the Democrats' baseless and irresponsible attempts to 
delegitimize the Court do not deserve to be given the time of day.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to join my friend and colleague 
from South Dakota in decrying the relentless smear campaign that is 
being directed at the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Of course, many of these attacks have come from expected sources--
liberal activist groups and people, for example, who leaked the 
Justices addresses so protests could occur on their lawns, lodging 
threats against these judges and their families--all because they 
disagreed with the decisions that the Court has made in one case or 
another.
  And, of course, there is one instance where a person who was 
determined to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh was thankfully stopped by 
law enforcement. That demonstrates the dangerousness of some of these 
political attacks against the Court.
  Sadly, these aggressors aren't limited to a small group of outsiders 
though. Attacks are being waged by elected Members of Congress. Some 
men and women in this building have sworn an oath to support and defend 
the Constitution but have repeatedly targeted the Court over supposed 
ethics concerns.
  Last year, 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the 
Supreme Court's budget, which actually would be unconstitutional, but 
they threatened to slash the Supreme Court's budget if it failed to 
meet their demand to implement a code of ethics which they had 
proscribed.
  A few years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues threatened the 
Court could be restructured if it failed to rule a certain way in a 
case involving the Second Amendment.
  And, of course, we can't forget the time when the majority leader, 
the Senator from New York, stood on the front steps of the Supreme 
Court and threatened two Justices by name if they didn't reach a 
preferred ruling in an abortion case.
  Well, these are unprecedented attacks against the Court. They are 
inappropriate at best, and they are unconstitutional at worst. They 
show a complete lack of respect for the three separate but equal 
branches of government that comprise our constitutional Republic.
  And they know that, but they are using these attacks to undermine 
public confidence in the Court.
  They demonstrate a willingness to do whatever it takes to secure a 
partisan win, even if that means shredding the U.S. Constitution and 
undermining the separation of powers.
  The partisan political attacks on the Supreme Court have varied, but 
the underlying objective has always been the same. It is about control. 
It is about power.
  Democrats want to control the institution, control the Justices, and, 
thus, direct the outcomes. In other words, they want to make the 
judicial branch not an independent branch of government--a nonpolitical 
branch. They want to make it another political branch of government 
because they don't like some of the outcomes that the courts have 
decided.
  Forget fair and impartial courts. That is not their objective. They 
want judges to fall in line and obey orders. In short, they want to 
politicize the independent judiciary. And if there is a threat to our 
democracy today, it is the politicalization of some of our most basic 
institutions--like the FBI, the Department of Justice--and now the left 
is targeting the Supreme Court of the United States.
  So far, they haven't been successful, but that doesn't mean they are 
going to stop trying any time soon.
  Last month, the New York Times published a piece by Congressman Jamie 
Raskin where he advised, as a supposed constitutional scholar, self-
proclaimed. He wrote an article about forcing two Supreme Court 
Justices to recuse themselves from a case involving President Trump. 
The piece is literally entitled: ``How to Force Justices Alito and 
Thomas To Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases.''
  Here is a prominent Member of Congress--a Democratic Member of 
Congress, a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar--talking about how 
to force an independent branch of government to commit to a certain 
outcome and force the recusal of two sitting Justices. He argued that 
the Department of Justice has the authority to compel that. He is 
wrong, but that is his argument.
  The decision on whether or not to recuse is reserved not for Members 
of Congress, not for the Department of Justice, or for anyone else. The 
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges provides clear

[[Page S4066]]

guidelines on recusal, and it is ultimately up to the individual 
Justices.
  Unfortunately, there is a full-fledged pressure campaign to blur the 
lines that separate the Supreme Court from other branches of 
government. For years, liberal activists and dark money groups have 
been on a warpath to destroy public confidence in the high Court's 
independence.
  One of these groups is called Demand Justice, an organization whose 
highest goal is to pack the Supreme Court and install a permanent 
liberal majority. A couple of years ago, one of the cofounders of 
Demand Justice said:

       It's time for [the Democrats] to see the Court as a 
     political opponent, just as much as any GOP elected official, 
     and run against it.

  That is the type of people and the type of agenda we are dealing with 
here.
  Demand Justice and other liberal groups recently sent a letter to 
Senator Durbin, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging him 
to use his power to investigate these so-called ethics concerns. They 
want the Senate to craft a law to dictate to the Supreme Court what 
their code of ethics should look like.
  Forget about the fact that they already have a code of ethics. 
Democratic Senators want to dictate what that code of ethics should 
look like.
  And, last night, Chairman Durbin tried to force a vote on this bill, 
but it was blocked. His unanimous consent request was blocked by the 
ranking member, Senator Graham.
  As my Republican colleagues and I have said for months, any decisions 
about the Supreme Court's practices or procedures should come from the 
Court itself, not from Congress. The Senate has a limited but important 
role where it concerns the Supreme Court, and that is through the 
confirmation process. And we are all familiar with that.
  All nine Justices underwent a rigorous background check. They endured 
hours and hours of questioning from members of the Judiciary Committee, 
met with Senators one on one, and ultimately were confirmed by majority 
vote of the U.S. Senate.
  That is where the Senate's role starts and ends. We don't have the 
authority to drag the Supreme Court Justices before Congress in pursuit 
of some political agenda. There are clear limits to Congress's power 
under the Constitution--and for good reason.
  The independent judiciary has been justly described as the crown 
jewel of our democracy. We have our fights. We have elections. But 
ultimately the Supreme Court gets to decide what the law is. That has 
been the case since 1804 in the case of Marbury v. Madison.
  Our Founders deliberately designed a Federal Government with three 
separate but equal branches. A system of checks and balances sought to 
prevent any one branch from forcing its will on another.
  If Chairman Durbin and our Senate colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee respect the separation of powers, they will resist this 
latest attempt to hijack the Court. The Supreme Court is a separate and 
coequal branch, and its operations squarely fall outside of the 
authority of the legislative branch.
  I often think back to a statement issued by Chief Justice Roberts in 
2018, when he said:

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

  It was true then, and it is true now. The men and women on the 
Supreme Court should not be pawns or players for either political 
party. The suggestion that judges are likely to apply perceived 
political views to cases is dangerous and disingenuous. We have been 
embroiled in the last few years with the hijacking of our justice 
system, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, for partisan 
political purposes, and it is very, very dangerous, because we know 
what goes around comes around.
  Once a precedent is set around here, when the shoe is on the other 
foot, when the majority is in the minority, when the minority is in the 
majority, that same precedent will be applied in the future.
  Public trust is absolutely vital to the health of our democracy, and 
the surest way to destroy that trust is by turning the Court into a 
political football. That is what our Democratic colleagues are risking.
  It doesn't matter what case is before a court or what ruling is 
ultimately handed down, elected officials need to lead by example and 
support judicial independence. Members of this body must show faith in 
the judiciary and in our constitutional system of separation of powers, 
and that includes letting the judges do their job.
  Look, the Court is going to hand down decisions that I don't like and 
that the Presiding Officer doesn't like, but that is not the point. The 
point is there is a fair and impartial process of applying the law and 
the Constitution to deciding what the outcome is.
  I can't count the number of times I have been disappointed by a Court 
ruling, but I have certainly never advocated for restructuring the 
Supreme Court to ensure a preferred outcome of mine the next time. And 
I have never suggested cutting funds if judges failed to deliver my 
preferred ruling. That would be wrong.
  And certainly, certainly, I have never threatened Justices with 
violence if they reached a decision I disliked.
  And I never have and I never will use the power of Congress to try to 
subpoena a sitting member of the Court or force Justices to recuse 
themselves contrary to their decision, using the rules that exist--the 
code of conduct that exists for Federal judges.
  So an independent judiciary is absolutely essential to our democracy, 
and I hope Chairman Durbin and our Democratic colleagues will show a 
little self-restraint and resist the far left's latest push to destroy 
public confidence in the Supreme Court or in the Court's independence.
  I yield the floor.