[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1644-S1645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Judicial Review

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today stands out as a critical moment for 
the country, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
  In recent weeks, Trump administration officials and allies have made 
statements and engaged in troubling conduct that threatened judicial 
independence and our very system of government.
  Elon Musk, a senior adviser to President Trump, has repeatedly called 
for the impeachment of Federal judges whose decisions he disagrees 
with, and he has questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges 
that is enshrined in article III of our Constitution.
  In a social media post, Vice President JD Vance falsely asserted 
that:

       Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate 
     power.

  This is merely the latest in a long line of claims by the Vice 
President that a President of the United States can defy the orders of 
the court. In 2021, Mr. Vance went so far as to say he would suggest to 
President Trump that ``when the court stops you, stand before the 
country like Andrew Jackson did and say, `The chief justice has made 
his ruling. Now let him enforce it.''' This was an obvious reference to 
the apocryphal story about President Andrew Jackson suggesting he would 
defy the Supreme Court ruling.
  And President Donald Trump himself recently posted:

       He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

  Let me repeat that post, personal post, by the President:

       He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

  Those 10 words are a rationale for tyranny and are an assault on our 
Constitution.
  This disregard for judicial review has not been limited to words 
alone. In multiple cases, administration officials have dragged their 
feet or failed to comply with Federal court orders.

  The administration has also nominated individuals to senior positions 
at the Department of Justice who seem to have little regard for 
separation of powers.
  One Trump nominee recently testified before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and said:

       There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every 
     instance, a public official is bound by a court decision.

  Fortunately, my colleague, Republican Senator John Kennedy of 
Louisiana, admonished this nominee, and he said:

       Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to 
     follow the order of a federal court. Ever. Now, you can 
     disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can 
     criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign.

  And it isn't only the executive branch that is threatening the 
independence of the judiciary. In the past month, three members of the 
House of Representatives have introduced articles of impeachment 
against Federal judges for no reason other than they ruled against this 
administration.
  These actions and comments constitute a clear and present danger to 
the separation of powers and our Constitution. Instead of favorably 
quoting the apocryphal words of Andrew Jackson, our political leaders 
and their allies should reference the words of Chief Justice Marshall 
in Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 decision. As we all learned in law 
school, Judge Marshall said:

       It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial 
     department to say what the law is.

  There has been a broad, bipartisan consensus on that point for more 
than two centuries. When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, 
the judiciary has the final word.
  Last week, on this floor, I tried to pass an S. Res. simply affirming 
the rule of law and finality of judicial review. I thought and hoped 
every Senator would support it. Regrettably, a Republican Senator 
objected, and the Senate missed an opportunity to say with one voice 
that we support the Constitution and judicial branch.
  Thankfully, the judicial branch has demonstrated its independence, 
even without the support of the other branches of government. Judges 
have carefully considered the cases before them and, in some cases, 
provided a check on the administration when it overstepped. For that, I 
commend the judiciary.
  Alexander Hamilton called the article III judiciary, the courts, 
``the least dangerous branch'' because it has neither soldiers nor 
money to enforce its decrees. That is why the courts' legitimacy in the 
eyes of the American people is so critical to its continued vitality, 
and that is why I continue to support an enforceable code of conduct 
for the Supreme Court.
  Recent efforts by the Trump administration and its allies to 
intimidate and impeach Federal judges have been based on those judges' 
decisions and the President who appointed them. In contrast, an 
enforceable code of conduct would apply to all Justices equally, no 
matter who appointed them and no matter how they rule on a particular 
matter.
  I first proposed that the Court adopt an enforceable code of conduct 
13 years

[[Page S1645]]

ago in 2012, prior to the existence of the Court's current conservative 
super majority and prior to many of its controversial decisions.
  The fact that many sitting Justices have publicly endorsed an 
enforceable code of conduct underscores that it does not pose a threat 
to the independence of the judicial branch. An enforceable code of 
conduct would bolster public confidence in the judicial branch.
  And by ensuring the judiciary is held to high regard, we can assure 
that so-called least dangerous branch of government maintains a 
position of strength now and in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.