The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“The Judiciary (Executive Calendar)” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the in the Senate section section on pages S1456-S1458 on May 2.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
The Judiciary
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all have observed in recent years, we have witnessed a deeply concerning string of attacks, verbal and otherwise, against Federal judges. I am not talking about fiery speeches or statements by activists and organizations that happen to disagree with a particular ruling. That is their right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. What I am talking about are physical threats, including those from elected officials who want to control another branch of government and because they don't like the decisions that the judiciary is handing down in a given case.
A few years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues filed a friend of the Court brief in the Supreme Court on a case involving gun rights. These Senators made a not-so-subtle threat to the Justices that unless the Court ruled in a certain way, the entire institution could be, quote, ``restructured.'' Some might call that coercion or intimidation.
Last year, one of our Democratic colleagues took another jab, calling the Supreme Court's conservative majority ``stolen,'' ``illegitimate,'' and ``far right.''
But without a doubt, one of the most shocking and reckless examples of what I am talking about occurred 4 years ago with New York's senior Senator, now the majority leader of the United States Senate. As the Supreme Court considered an abortion case, the Democratic leader went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name if they did not rule a certain way. He said:
I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Now, it might be more understandable if these words were said by some person on the street who didn't have the sort of education and background and responsibilities of the majority leader of the United States Senate, but coming from the leader of this institution, those words were shocking and reckless and even dangerous.
I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to the majority leader that when he talks, people listen. That is true for Senators in this Chamber. I know sometimes we think nobody is listening to what we say, but when we say something like that, people do listen. I have no doubt that some heard Senator Schumer issue unveiled threats against Supreme Court Justices, and they viewed that as permission to take action on their part--for example, the individual who was prepared to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh. No doubt this person of unstable mental mind heard some of the rhetoric and was moved to action. Thank goodness for the law enforcement officials who were able to interdict him.
Last summer, as the Supreme Court considered another case involving abortion rights, an organization released the home addresses of the Supreme Court Justices, some of whom still have young, school-age children at home. They encouraged protesters to show up at the Justices' homes to harass and intimidate them, which just so happens to be a Federal crime. It was a disgusting breach of privacy and a massive security risk for these members of the Court and their families.
It was sadly met with nothing more than a shrug by some of our Democratic colleagues. The Senate majority leader said he is comfortable with protests happening outside of the Justices' homes, even though it is a Federal crime.
The White House confirmed that President Biden believes this is a constitutional right, to protest, even though it is a Federal crime. President Biden and Attorney General Garland have not seen fit to bring any charges against these protesters for their attempts to intimidate members of the Supreme Court at their homes at all times of the day and night. In fact, some sources indicate that the Garland Department of Justice was discouraging U.S. marshals, who were ostensibly there to protect the Justices and their families, discouraging them from actually making arrests.
For the Justices and their families, this was not a peaceful exercise of these protesters' First Amendment rights; these were moments of complete fear.
A few weeks ago, Justice Alito--one of those members of the Court--
spoke to the Wall Street Journal about this period of intimidation, saying that Justices who were believed to be in the majority were what he called ``targets of assassination,'' no doubt referring to what happened or what nearly happened to Justice Kavanaugh. He said: ``It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs--that is the abortion decision involving the Mississippi law. He said: ``It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.'' As we know, there was an incredibly close call.
When the man who said he intended to kill Justice Kavanaugh was arrested, he had a Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol. He had ammunition. He had a knife. He had a hammer, crowbar, and zip ties. He told authorities that his plan was to break into the house, kill Justice Kavanaugh, and then commit suicide. Thank God he was caught before anyone was harmed.
This should serve as a clear warning that it is time to lower the temperature. When angry mobs gather on the Justices' front lawns and members of the High Court feel like there is a bounty on their heads, something needs to change. But instead of backing off, some of our colleagues appear to be doubling down.
Earlier this year, the senior Senator from Oregon delivered an incredibly dangerous speech here on the floor of the Senate advocating that the Biden administration actually ignore a potential court order that he disagreed with. This was a senior Member of the legislature, the Senate of the United States--the world's greatest deliberative body--instructing the executive branch to disregard an expected order from a sitting Federal judge. That is, in effect, ripping the Constitution into shreds and throwing it out the window. The remedy for a decision that a judge hands down that you disagree with is to appeal that decision. That is the remedy.
But now some of our colleagues have escalated their threats beyond mere rhetoric. Fifteen of our Democratic colleagues recently wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for funding the Supreme Court. They recommended cutting the Supreme Court's budget if it fails to meet their demands to implement a preferred code of ethics. In short, they wanted to use the power of the purse to, frankly, coerce a coequal and separate branch of government. The Founders must have been rolling over in their graves.
The threat doesn't just raise separation of powers concerns; it also raises serious security risks. It has been less than a year since Justices watched mobs of angry protesters assemble on their front lawns and an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly averted.
In light of those security threats, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that I introduced, along with Senator Coons of Delaware, to extend security protection to the Justices' families. We unanimously passed that.
How quickly some of our colleagues seem to have forgotten the dangers that Supreme Court Justices face every day. Threatening to defund the Supreme Court and its police protection in an enhanced threat environment is incredibly irresponsible.
Sadly, the attacks on America's independent judiciary, our crown jewels, doesn't end there. Last week, the majority leader sent a letter to the chief judge for the Northern District of Texas to try to intimidate him into doing what the majority leader wants. The Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, is unhappy with the way some of those judges have ruled in recent cases in the Northern District of Texas, so he believes he should determine how cases are assigned in the Northern District of Texas.
This new approach certainly is more nuanced than going to the steps of the Supreme Court to issue direct threats that ``you won't know what hit you,'' but his demand is the same: Do what I want or there will be consequences.
Of course, this was made without any consideration for what is best for the functioning of the courts, access to justice for private litigants and indigent defendants, and the importance, again, of protecting the independence of the judiciary.
Years ago, Justice Scalia wrote that it is one thing to have a parchment Constitution, one that offers all sorts of protection. He said that, in fact, the former Soviet Union had one of the best Constitutions on paper of any country in the world. But the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States of America is that we have an independent judiciary, a coequal branch of government.
I am reminded of something Chief Justice John Roberts said a few years ago about our independent judiciary. He said:
We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
I agree with the Chief Justice, but apparently the majority leader does not agree. He wants the chief judge for the Northern District of Texas to somehow reassign cases in a way to make sure that Biden judges or Obama judges get those cases and certainly not Trump judges or Bush judges. This turns the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary on its head, and it undercuts the legitimacy, in the eyes of most people, of what that separate branch of government is doing.
We need an independent branch of government to enforce the Constitution and to say, as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison--I think it was 1804--that it is emphatically the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is, and they do that by interpreting the Constitution.
The majority leader has even threatened congressional action if the chief judge fails to meet his demands. But I would encourage the chief judge of the Northern District to do what Chief Justice Roberts did when he was invited to attend the circus that was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning; that is, respectfully decline.
We are not here to bully any judge into doing what the majority leader wants or what any of us want, which would ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the court because they don't like some of the rulings. Again, the remedy for a ruling and a decision you don't like is an appeal. It happens every day across the country.
Our Founders deliberately designed the Federal Government with three separate but coequal branches. Through this system of checks and balances, they sought to prevent any one branch from forcing another to bend to its will.
Unfortunately, many in today's Democratic Party are trying to blur the line between the legislative and judicial branches and act as if the judges are supposed to be partisan players. It doesn't matter what case is before a court or what the ruling ultimately is. Elected officials must lead by example and support the independence of the judiciary and, certainly, not actively attempt to undermine and subvert the legitimacy of the courts.
I can't count the number of times I have disagreed with a court ruling, but I have never suggested that the judge or judges deciding the cases were illegitimate. I have never threatened judges with violence if they reach a decision I don't like, and I certainly have never advocated for defunding the judiciary if a judge fails to deliver my preferred outcome.
As Justice Scalia said, an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our Constitution and is absolutely essential to our democracy.
And, while judges' decisions may not always be popular, they should be given due respect. The defamation and intimidation of Federal judges is dangerous both to the judges themselves and to the health of our constitutional democracy.
It is time to lower the temperature and show respect for our Constitution, which means to show respect for the independence of the Federal judiciary.
I yield the floor.