[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9910-9912]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             WEEK IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting vote today on the 
trade agreement, and I know my friends at Club for Growth have scored 
that.
  They wanted people to vote ``yes'' because they believed, as some 
have said, it is about free trade; but it is a bit ironic for those who 
follow politics because, on the one hand, Republicans were being told 
this will allow us to force the President to keep us apprised, to give 
us notice of what is going on so that we can reign anything in that is 
not helpful to the country.
  I didn't have that impression of the bill, not when reading the TPA, 
not going to the classified setting. I mean, I did that; I read the 
TPP, most of it.
  Having been a lawyer and a judge, prosecutor, done defense, a chief 
justice, I have litigated a lot of loopholes. There are a lot of 
loopholes in that TPP. There were loopholes in the TPA.

                              {time}  1430

  One of my Democratic friends was telling me, Mr. Speaker, that he was 
being told that the whole reason the President came up here is that, by 
passing this trade agreement, it is going to allow the President to get 
his agenda done in the next 18 months without Congress being able to 
stop him.
  Some of my Democratic friends prefer that Congress have more say than 
that, and some were not happy with the proposal at all. They also were 
smart enough to know there are a lot of American jobs that will be lost 
because of that bill. I am not an isolationist. I believe in free 
trade, but I don't believe in free rein for a President. I am afraid 
that is what it will do, and that is why I had to vote ``no'' once 
again.
  But it passed, and now, we will see if what some of my Democratic 
friends were told is accurate in that the bill will allow the President 
to achieve his agenda without Republicans being able to stop him. It 
appears that way to me, in reading the bills, that he has got enough 
loopholes he can take advantage of.
  Plus, even without loopholes, there is a requirement of notification. 
He was required to notify us before he released anybody from 
Guantanamo. He didn't do it. He went ahead and released five of the 
worst murderers in return for a guy who is, we are told, about to be 
charged with desertion.
  The President doesn't seem to be bogged down by having to follow the 
law, but I am impressed with my friends who think--but, yes--if we pass 
one more law that makes him give us notice, after 6\1/2\ years of his 
not keeping us apprised as the law requires, this time, we think he 
really, really will.
  I am impressed with that kind of optimism, even though the old 
expression here in Washington is, no matter how cynical you get, it is 
never enough to catch up. Sometimes, I think there is merit to that.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue even far more important 
than trade that is about to hit this country. It could create a 
constitutional crisis of proportions that some of the Justices on the 
Supreme Court can't imagine. Mr. Speaker, I blew up the law. This is 
the law. It is not an ethical requirement.
  I mean, having been a prosecutor, a defense--heck, I was even court-
appointed to appeal a capital murder conviction. I don't know how many 
here on the floor have appealed a capital murder conviction. I begged 
the judge not to appoint me, but he did anyway, and when I got into the 
thousands of pages of records, I found out he had not gotten a fair 
trial.
  I fought for him in the highest court in Texas and got the death 
penalty reversed. Some clients felt like I was a pretty good lawyer. I 
was told before I went on the bench that I got the only jury verdict 
against what was then the largest oil company in the world. I don't 
know if it was or is. That is what I was told.
  I know something about practicing law, and I know something about 
being a judge. I know that, with any case in which the public would 
suspect that I could not be impartial, I would have to recuse myself. 
Sometimes, judges will just recuse themselves so they don't have to 
make a tough call--I never did that--but there are times when you have 
such a strong opinion about a matter that you have no business sitting 
on that case.
  Now, ethical requirements would insist that a judge conduct his 
performance as a judge in such a way that it comports with the 
requirements of the canons of ethics. However, this isn't an ethical 
violation that would get you a letter from some bar president or from 
somebody saying: We think you violated the canons of ethics.
  This isn't it. This is United States law. This is the law of the 
land. This is part A. Part B goes into some different possibilities 
when a judge might have to recuse him or herself, but it is volume 28 
of the United States Code, section 455, and section A doesn't have any 
subparts to it like B does. B is, like I say, other examples where the 
judge might have to recuse himself, but A is unequivocal.
  ``Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States 
shall''--that is a ``shall''--``disqualify himself''--generic, male or 
female--``in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably 
be questioned.''
  This is not some model code of ethics. This is the United States law. 
No one in the country, including on the United States Supreme Court, is 
supposed to be above the law. As we have talked about, we have two 
Justices who have performed same-sex marriages.
  In fact, the article by Greg Richter, May 18 of 2015, is quoting from 
Maureen Dowd in her article in which Maureen Dowd writes regarding 
Justice Ginsburg: ``With a sly look and special emphasis on the word 
`Constitution,' Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two 
men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the 
United States.''
  Now, there is no question that Justice Ginsburg is biased, 
prejudiced. She has her own opinion about this matter. She has had her 
opinion about this. That was clear in the first same-sex marriage she 
performed. For her not to disqualify herself is a violation of the law 
of the United States; yet we are told that Justice Ginsburg is not 
going to recuse herself, that she wants to be part of a majority 
opinion.
  What happens when someone who is disqualified for sitting on a case 
sits on a case anyway in order to use her partial, biased position to 
bring about a majority opinion? It would certainly seem that that would 
be an illegal act, not criminal--this isn't criminal law--but it is an 
illegal act for someone to violate this law.
  Then, of course, we also had Justice Kagan as mentioned in the fall 
of last

[[Page 9911]]

year, in September of last year, in The Hill, when Peter Sullivan 
reported: ``'Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan officiated a same-sex 
wedding on Sunday,' a court spokeswoman told the Associated Press.
  ``The ceremony in Maryland for a former law clerk is the first same-
sex wedding that Kagan has performed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 
retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have performed same-sex weddings in 
the past.
  ``Gay marriage,'' the article reads, ``has been a divisive topic at 
the Supreme Court as it has been elsewhere in the country.''
  The article reads: ``The Court could decide as early as this month 
whether to take up the issue again in the coming session, this time to 
consider a more sweeping ruling declaring a right to same-sex marriage 
across the country.
  ``Ginsburg said last week that, unless an appeals court allows a gay 
marriage ban to stand, `there is no need for us to rush' on a Supreme 
Court ruling.''
  But they took the case up, and now, we are told they are going to 
rule by June 30 of this month.
  Clearly, Justice Kagan is disqualified. She has had a profound 
opinion. It reads ``in which the impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned.''
  There are different standards of evidence in the law. Some States use 
different burdens of proof. You can have more likely than not if it is 
a group, like on a jury, one more than half. If there is a 
preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not, then you 
find that way.
  Probable cause is an issue that has an evidentiary requirement. It 
has got to be, probably, something is likely or has occurred, a 
preponderance of the evidence. I mentioned that ``beyond a reasonable 
doubt'' is what most criminal courts have before you can find someone 
guilty. Evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some 
courts that use a standard called ``clear and convincing evidence.''
  This United States law doesn't use any of those standards. It is a 
very weak threshold before a judge or a Justice must disqualify 
himself. He must disqualify himself. I hated the fact that Justice 
Scalia, some years back, had to disqualify himself, but he had already 
had an opinion expressed about, I believe it was, the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  He could not be sure that it wouldn't end up as a 4-4 decision, which 
meant the ninth circuit decision would stand, which struck down ``under 
God'' in the pledge, as I recall, but he disqualified himself. Justice 
Scalia followed 28 USC 455.
  He disqualified himself because his judgment--his impartiality--might 
reasonably be questioned. It appeared that he was partial, that he had 
an opinion in the case, so he disqualified himself. That is acting in 
accordance with the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep coming back to this. It is a matter of a 
constitutional crisis when the Highest Court in the land not merely 
strikes down and says that their opinion is more important than Moses', 
depicted up there in the center point of this room, more important than 
Moses', depicted in the marble wall over the Supreme Court, holding the 
Ten Commandments.
  The Supreme Court says theirs is more important than the opinions 
established and stated by Jesus Christ when he said--and he was quoting 
Moses--that a man shall leave his mother and father, a woman leave her 
home, and the two will come together and be one flesh, and what God has 
joined together, let no man put asunder.
  That is the law of God according to Moses. It is the law of God 
according to Jesus. It is tough enough if you have a United States 
Supreme Court which, back in the 1890s, said this is clearly a 
Christian nation. Despite what any opinions may be, the evidence 
established. This country was established as a Christian nation.
  The great thing is that, if a nation is established on Judeo-
Christian beliefs, it allows anybody to live here and to function here 
and to do so without impediment to one's beliefs because one can be an 
atheist, an agnostic, a Buddhist, a Muslim.
  You can be any of those things, as long as you are not trying to take 
over the country like some would like to do.

                              {time}  1445

  But otherwise, by basing a country on Judeo-Christian beliefs, we 
have provided more freedom for individuals than any nation in the 
history of the world. And yet we may have an ultimate crisis here when 
a Court says our opinion is more important than God, if there is one, 
more important than Moses, more important than Jesus. Our opinion is 
not only more important than those people, but it is the law of the 
land, and it is so important that our opinion count that we are going 
to violate the law ourselves in order to force our opinion--clearly 
what it is--our opinion on the United States of America.
  I don't want anybody to be prejudiced against anybody else. I was 
sick to my stomach this morning hearing about the shooting in 
Charleston, South Carolina. This evil perpetrator killed my brothers 
and sisters. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. Skin color does not 
matter one bit. He killed my brothers and sisters.
  I hope America joins me in mourning. I know the people on both sides 
of this aisle do. At our prayer breakfast this morning, we prayed and 
will continue to pray for the families of those who were lost. Those 
Christians, we as Christians believe, as Jesus told the thief beside 
him: This day you will be in paradise with Me. We believe they are 
better off than any of us here in the United States or on Earth.
  Because of their beliefs, we believe they are in paradise with Jesus 
himself, with the Lord, but it is the terrible wake they leave behind 
that is so tragic. State senator, from all accounts a good man, not 
only a Christian brother, but a really good man, pastor. Three men, six 
women. So our hearts go out to them. We don't want anybody to be 
prejudiced against anybody.
  But when it comes to the founding block, the foundation of any solid 
society, it doesn't matter what relationships exist. It doesn't matter 
who loves or is friends with whom. As a Christian, I think I can love 
most everybody. There are a few it is kind of tough, but most 
everybody. I have got some Democrats over here. I love them. They are 
just wonderful people. They are wrong on issues, but I love them. They 
are great folks. There is no animus.
  But when it comes to the foundation of this Nation, the home, a 
mother and a father, regardless of what other relationships may exist 
between siblings, between anybody else, what matters is you don't 
destroy the central building block.
  I was intrigued when the Iowa Supreme Court back in 2009 didn't use 
these words, but basically said there is no evidence in nature to 
indicate a preference of a marriage being between a man and a woman. It 
was clear the people of Iowa spoke--I love those folks. They were 
awesome. They came out, and for the first time since the up-or-down 
retention vote started, I understand, in 1960 or 1962 or so, they threw 
out the judges that were up for reelection because the vast majority in 
Iowa knew that is ridiculous.
  Nature makes very clear that you start a family, whether you keep 
both a mother and father, things happen. There are so many of our 
greatest Americans have arisen from orphanages or from single-parent 
homes, but still it doesn't get away from the optimum being nature says 
you are best off if you have a mother and father. They can produce 
children. Yes, you can adopt children, sure, but that is where nature 
comes in and says, yeah, but the optimum is a mother and a father in a 
home.
  I know there are some who are involved in same-sex marriage. They are 
not able to love as I do. They hate anybody that disagrees with them. 
There are some that can love me, though we disagree. I hope that the 
continued hatred that has been growing among some in the same-sex 
community can be tamped down, but this is an issue that is foundational 
to any society that is going to maintain strength, going to maintain 
viability for a long

[[Page 9912]]

time into the future rather than show we just crossed another milestone 
on our way to the dustbin of history. This is something that is 
important to our society, to our foundation. Let's love everybody. 
Let's use law enforcement to stop those like the evil perpetrator in 
Charleston, like the leftwinger I think it was in North Carolina that 
killed the Muslims. There is no call for that. The man needs to go to 
prison. In Texas, we would say it is a multiple murder. I would say you 
need to get the death penalty for killing more than one Muslim. There 
is no place for that.
  But again, when it comes to the optimum home, a loving mother and 
father can procreate, adopt, but regardless of who agrees or disagrees, 
this is going to be a civilization changer, and it is not going to be 
for the better. We are going to continue our divisiveness and 
destructiveness when the highest Court in the land has Justices that 
say: My opinion is so much more important than the Bible, Moses, Jesus. 
My opinion is so much more valuable that I am going to violate the law; 
I am going to break the law so I can sit on this opinion, so the 
country can have my forced opinion on it.
  I know there are Christian leaders, some are ready to capitulate, but 
there are some that won't. But we are now to the point, Steve King and 
I and some others, addressed back when the hate crime bill was being 
discussed, that we are going to lead to the point where you ultimately 
persecute, eventually prosecute people because of their beliefs about 
sexuality. People then were wrong because they couldn't see the future, 
but this is where we have come.
  Now, if you hold the same beliefs that David Axelrod says the 
President didn't, but he said it in order to get elected, that a 
marriage is a man and a woman, you hold that belief that most Americans 
have held and still hold, that the Founders all held regardless of 
their sexuality, they believed a family, marriage at least, was a man 
and a woman, that that was foundational.
  So I am not sure what is going to happen in this country. I don't 
have that kind of crystal ball. But I know if we have two or three 
Justices who are clearly disqualified, who have clearly indicated--not 
only raised questions as to whether they could be reasonably questioned 
as to their impartiality, they made clear they are very, very partial. 
I don't know what happens, but it isn't going to be good at all.
  Justice Sotomayor has made statements that indicate she has an 
opinion before this case was decided. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope scholars 
will look carefully at this and they will understand, if Supreme Court 
Justices violate the law in order to change the law dramatically, as 
they want to do, is that a valid law? I don't believe it is. If they 
break the law in order to make the law, it is a void law. They need to 
recuse themselves and let an impartial group on the Court make the 
decision. It should be left to the States anyway.
  It is probably sufficient grounds for impeachment for a Supreme Court 
Justice to violate the law so that they can force their will upon the 
American people to push through their legislative agenda even though 
they are not legislators. Probably impeachment would be in order. If 
they break the law in order to change dramatically the law, they 
shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
  It is my hope and prayer they will do the legal thing, recuse 
themselves before the Court makes its final decision with regard to 
marriage. If they don't, they will go down in legitimate American 
history books as being exceedingly destructive, and history will note 
that they violated the law in order to change the law so that it would 
be the way they wanted, not with a constitutional amendment, not 
through a legislative process, not by a constitutional convention that 
article V provides for. They just had the feeling that they wanted to 
tinker with over 200 years of law and foundational societal structure 
and force America to abide by their legislative agenda. Again, I just 
can't get over that.
  If they don't disqualify themselves, they will violate the law to try 
to change the law with the agenda they have made clear that they have. 
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope Americans will join me in not only hoping, but 
praying that their hearts will be touched, that they will decide not to 
act illegally, that they will be moved toward acting lawfully, 
disqualify themselves, and let us get a proper opinion from the Supreme 
Court.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________