[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 30, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5561-S5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday evening, in the tradition of 
another Democrat President and his infamous Court-packing scheme way 
back in 1937, President Biden announced a proposal to interfere with 
the Constitution's separation of powers and permanently politicize the 
Supreme Court. He dressed it up with appeals to permanent American 
values, but what it all boiled down to was this: Democrats don't like 
some of the Supreme Court's

[[Page S5562]]

recent decisions, and so they have decided to change the rules of the 
game. That is it.
  I have disagreed with more than one Supreme Court decision in my 
time--I have disagreed with Supreme Court Justices nominated by 
Presidents of my own party--but I have never thought that my not 
agreeing with a Supreme Court decision meant that the Court itself was 
illegitimate or that my party should attempt to change the law to make 
over the Supreme Court in our image.
  Well, not so for Democrats. The Supreme Court releases a handful of 
decisions the Democrats don't like, and they decide that the Court is 
illegitimate and that it is time to remake the Court to their liking. 
More than one Democrat has already introduced legislation in Congress 
to do just that.
  And now, with the President's announcement yesterday, it has become 
clear that those plans have accelerated and that if Democrats take the 
White House and Congress in November, we can expect them to lose no 
time in destroying the Court as we know it.
  While the President's proposals are troubling enough, with a measure 
to circumvent the Constitution's lifetime appointments for Justices and 
replace the Supreme Court's own code of conduct with a code of conduct 
mandated by Democrat Members of Congress, who knows--who knows if 
Democrats will stop there? After all, while their proposal would 
conveniently start by retiring Republican appointees, Democrats would 
only be able to retire one Justice every 2 years. What is to say that 
would be fast enough for Democrats?
  We all know that Court-packing, which is expanding the Supreme Court 
until you get a sufficient number of Justices to endorse your policies, 
has gained significant traction in Democrat circles. Indeed, President 
Biden's term limits proposal is a version of Court-packing by another 
name, and it would not surprise me at all if Democrats didn't stop 
there, because--make no mistake--this is a slippery slope. Once you 
start interfering, there is no going back.
  If the Democrats implement this plan, it is easy to see a future 
where each subsequent administration acts to ``return balance'' to the 
Supreme Court, with the result that the Supreme Court changes wildly 
from administration to administration, losing all independence and 
credibility and any resemblance to the Supreme Court as established by 
the Constitution.
  I would like to remind my Democrat colleagues of what happened with 
the filibuster for judicial nominees here in the Senate. Back in 2013, 
Democrats, frustrated that they could not rubberstamp all of President 
Obama's appointees, abolished the filibuster for lower court nominees. 
It turned out to be a quick step from that to abolishing the filibuster 
for Supreme Court nominees a few years later, and I am pretty sure that 
I have heard more than one of my Democrat colleagues express regret 
over that 2013 decision. But it seems that Democrats are resolved not 
to learn from history and are perfectly willing to sacrifice the long-
term stability of the Supreme Court for their own short-term political 
gain.
  Even worse than any specific element of President Biden's proposals 
yesterday is the incredibly dangerous precedent they would set for 
meddling in what is supposed to be a separate, independent branch of 
our government. If Democrats were really, really concerned about 
impartiality and the rule of law and promoting faith in the Supreme 
Court, the last thing they would be doing is interfering with the 
Court's makeup.
  If there are any Democrats left in Congress who are willing to put 
the long-term health of our institutions over some temporary political 
gain, I urge them--I urge them--to join Republicans in opposing this 
power grab.
  I yield the floor.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.