[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Page 19785]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            REHNQUIST, ROBERTS, AND RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Miss McMorris). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, as we honor Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist's life, we pause to reflect on his service to our country, a 
record of service that was colored with honor, dignity, and 
distinction.
  Many commentators are focused on his success ushering in a quiet, 
conservative revolution on the Court. Another remarkable facet of 
Rehnquist's legacy, however, is found in a much more understated role 
of the Chief Justice, that of the judiciary's chief advocate and 
ambassador. The hallmark of his style, no matter how volatile the issue 
or context, from abortion to impeachment, was one of respectful debate, 
a quality that garnered an enormous degree of loyalty and respect among 
his fellow Justices, litigants, and Court watchers.
  But the Chief Justice not only worked to foster respect and 
collegiality within the walls of the Court; he did more. For the last 2 
years of his tenure, Rehnquist turned his focus to a matter that has 
also been a source of growing concern for many, the deterioration in 
relations between the Congress and the courts. As the Chief Justice 
reported in his year-end analysis of the state of the judiciary, and 
again in his customarily understated way, ``During the last year, it 
seems that the traditional interchange between the Congress and the 
Judiciary broke down.''
  This hostility long preceded congressional intervention in the tragic 
case of Terri Schiavo and has taken many forms beyond the most simple 
and pernicious, that of defunding the courts. It includes measures 
stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear particular cases, 
condemning the courts for the citation of certain precedent, and 
splitting circuits out of a dislike for their jurisprudence.
  One constitutional amendment would even change the Framers' design-
of-life tenure for lower Federal courts and subject judges to costly 
campaigns and retention elections. If Members think political 
campaigning by elected officials and the growth of 527 organizations 
and other independent expenditure efforts are already out of control, 
just imagine adding negative attack ads in judicial races around the 
country: ``Call Judge Jones and tell him to stop coddling criminals'' 
or ``Call Judge Smith and ask him why he denied relief to widows and 
orphans.'' One can just imagine what the judicial ads might look like.
  Even though many of these legislative initiatives have yet to pass, 
we are already witnessing the direct consequences to our court system. 
In recent years there has been a marked decline in the level of 
interest and service on the bench among highly qualified attorneys. 
Judges are leaving the bench to return to private practice. Reckless 
talk in the House Committee on the Judiciary about the potential 
impeachment of judges not for unethical conduct but out of a 
disagreement with their decisions has only added to the chilling effect 
on the courts and people's willingness to serve.
  Ultimately, this protracted war against the judicial branch will only 
denigrate both Congress and the courts. This is not the first time 
relations between the two branches have been at a dangerously low ebb, 
nor was Rehnquist the first Chief Justice to express alarm. Former 
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes admonished the Congress of his day 
that ``in the great enterprise of making democracy workable, we are all 
partners. One member of our body politic cannot say to another `I have 
no need of thee.'''
  Increasingly, however, the Congress has been saying just that, and 
Rehnquist was among the first to spot the danger. When the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and I formed a bipartisan caucus to 
improve relations with the courts, Justice Rehnquist was the first to 
sit down with us. We invited him to meet with our caucus. He came to 
the Hill, sat down with us, and it was a very important meeting and 
interchange. After presiding over the high Court for the last 2 
decades, he was clearly disturbed at the turn of events in relations 
between the branches and the resulting attack upon the independence of 
the judiciary.
  Why does it matter if the Congress and the courts are at war? Because 
if the separation of powers has eroded and an independent judiciary is 
impaired, decisions become increasingly politicized. Public confidence 
in the rule of law erodes and people begin taking law into their own 
hands: 174 years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall warned, 
``The greatest scourge an angry heaven ever inflicted upon an 
ungrateful and sinning people was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a 
dependent judiciary.''
  During the confirmation hearings of John Roberts next week, there 
will be a great many important questions asked about Roberts' judicial 
philosophy, his views on individual rights and freedoms. But I hope 
that at least one Senator will ask whether Roberts, a prodigy of and 
potential successor to Rehnquist, will aspire to succeed not only his 
mentor's conservative revolution but his all too solitary work to 
repair the damage to the historic and vital comity between the Congress 
and the courts.

                          ____________________