[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY: RESTORING COMITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 174 years ago, Supreme Court Justice John 
Marshall warned: ``The greatest scourge in angry heaven ever inflicted 
upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or 
a dependent judiciary.''
  Despite Marshall's warning, quite remarkably, nearly 200 years later 
the very independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our 
separation of powers, is still a matter of contention for some, 
particularly in this Congress.
  For 2 years in a row now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has used his year-
end report to highlight the deteriorating relationship between the 
judicial branch and the legislative branch, the result of a recent 
systematic congressional attack on the independence of the judiciary. 
Since I arrived in Congress, I have been quite surprised by the 
dreadful state of relations between our branches and the absence of the 
comity that historically existed between the two.
  The Federal caseload continues to rise at a record pace, reaching new 
levels. Courthouse funding is woefully inadequate, failing to meet the 
needs of our Federal courts in order to carry out their mission and to 
make necessary improvements in priority areas such as court security. 
Judicial confirmations continue to be mired in political brinksmanship. 
Judicial compensation has not kept pace with inflation and 
congressional inaction on an annual basis has led to delays in 
important adjustments, despite the President's admonition for Congress 
to act.
  The House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit, has initiated 
investigations of judges charged with judicial misconduct, matters that 
were previously left to circuit judicial councils, and the word 
``impeachment'' has been used quite loosely and frequently as a threat.
  A few weeks ago, these threats reached a fever pitch with talk, from 
the highest leadership levels of this body, of intentions to ``look at 
an unaccountable, arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their 
nose at Congress and the President'' and a warning that ``the time will 
come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but 
not today.''
  The Congress has also renewed its appetite for legislation that would 
strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction on a piecemeal basis from 
areas in which some are not pleased with the results that have been 
reached from the courts, or in areas where some are worried about 
potential outcomes down the road.
  We have considered one bill which would remove Federal court 
jurisdiction over issues concerning the free exercise or the 
establishment of religion or over marriage. Should any Federal judge 
take up any issue involving that, the free exercise or the 
establishment of religion, he is subject to impeachment under the bill.
  We had another proposal to remove jurisdiction of the courts over the 
Ten Commandments, another over the Pledge of Allegiance, and yet 
another to remove jurisdiction over any issue affecting the 
acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law. Again, the 
penalty for a judge who inquires or exercises jurisdiction is 
impeachment, removal from office.
  Perhaps we should simply remove the jurisdiction of the Federal 
courts over the entire first amendment and be done with it.
  After moving to strip jurisdiction, we recently moved to provide 
jurisdiction, where the Federal courts should not have it, in the 
Schiavo matter; and the only common denominator seems to be the desire 
to obtain the preferred result from the bench, regardless of the 
constitutionally enshrined principles of the separation of powers and 
of federalism itself.
  Congress has not stopped here, but has pursued proposals to split 
appellate court jurisdiction and even considered legislation that would 
decide for the judiciary what they may look at or include in their 
judicial opinions.
  Does anyone in Congress believe that we can undermine the courts 
without belittling the Congress itself?
  Some Supreme Court rulings, such as the decision with regard to the 
sentencing guidelines, remind us that sometimes there will be judicial 
decisions that we believe are poorly reasoned and others we just do not 
like. However, efforts by the Congress to force the courts to look at 
our transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, would only serve to 
undermine the very institution in which we serve.
  As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the 
relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have 
formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan 
congressional caucus dedicated to this goal. Our caucus consists of 
some 30 Members from both sides of the aisle, and I encourage my 
colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to restore the 
historic comity between our two branches.
  One hundred and seventy-four years ago, Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice 
Marshall warned of the great scourge of a dependent judiciary to be 
inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people. Let us not forget his 
wise admonition.

                          ____________________