Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate Sen. Cornyn on Independence Security of Judicial Branch  CSPAN  May 6, 2022 3:19am-3:34am EDT

3:19 am
3:20 am
senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know we're used to having a lot going on here in washington, d.c., but this week it seems like we've been hit by a whirlwind of activity -- a war in europe, covid-19 still lingering in parts of the world, and then the supreme court found itself the victim of a unauthorized leak of a draft opinion, which has created a lot of furor and anxiety and misinformation. one of the things that it has
3:21 am
demonstrated is the need to protect the independence of the court. justin antonin scalia used to say that you can read the constitution and bill of rights of a the love countries around the -- of a lot of countries around the world and they look great on paper. he mentioned that of the old soviet union, for example. but he said they're just words on paper without an independent judiciary to enforce them. and he was right. whoever leaked this draft document obviously intended to create a lot of public pressure -- indeed, coercion -- on the sitting justices to either change their mind or to somehow garner a political issue that they would be able to use to divert the american people's attention from things like inflation, crime, the border,
3:22 am
and the challenges to our national security and world peace. we have to get to the bottom of this, and i'm confident that chief justice roberts will pursue that until the person who leaked it is identified and held accountable. but this spotlight on the court, along with the reaction, the public reaction that we've seen, has raised another important issue, and that is the physical safety and security of the justices themselves and their families. in our increasingly polarized climate, the justices have been villainiesed and -- villainized and subjected to public threats. people have even published their home address so they could show up and protest on the property, on their lawns. this decision, which is actually a nondecision, because the supreme court hasn't handed down
3:23 am
its decision. but the leaker that is accomplished his or her goal, i suppose, by creating this hostile environment for the justices and their families. but, unfortunately you there are -- but, unfortunately, there are even people in this chamber that have contributed to that environment. in 2019, the democratic leader went to the supreme court steps and threatened two supreme court justices by name. he said, quote, you have released the whirlwind. this was the day the case was argued in the court. the senior senator from new york, the majority leader, said, you were released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. and he named justice gorsuch and
3:24 am
justice kavanaugh by name. to have the senior democrat and senate majority leader from this chamber lobbing threats at sitting justices on the supreme court if they did not rule in a way he wished is dangerous. we've wondered before about the impact of some of the irresponsible rhetoric that occasionally occurs around here on vulnerable minds and people who might be tempted to act based on that incitemt, from the majority leader himself is just irresponsible. this is the branch of government which is supposed to be the adults in the room, to operate in a way that is respectful even
3:25 am
with our differences. and the supreme court is the branch that's meant to operate free from public or political pressure. as chief justice roberts said at the time, justices know that criticism comes with the territory. it's a free country. people can express themselves within limits. but threatening statements, he said, of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they're dangerous, he said. well, chief justice roberts is right and subsequent events have shown that threats against the justices aren't going away and are becoming even more intense. we need to take steps to improve the protection of the justices and their families against potential violence, and it can't wait until something bad happens.
3:26 am
some political activists have already announced their intention to go to the private homes of the justices. this is an appalling violation of their personal privacy, and puts them and their families at risk. we currently have two justices with school-age children. once judge jackson joins the court, when justice breyer steps down, there will be three. the chief justices asked do think take appropriate action to increase protection for the physical safety of the justices and their families, and we need to act and act with urgency. senator coons, our friend from delaware, a democrat, and i are introducing a bill, a bipartisan bill obviously, called the supreme court police parity act to strengthen security protection for the justices and their families. this will ensure they
3:27 am
receive -- the justices receive the same protection and resources that article 1 and article 2 officers and their families enjoy. for our present purposes, that means they will be given the same authority that the capitol police already have here on capitol hill. i appreciate our friend, senator coons, working with me on this important legislation, and i hope the entire senate will vote on it soon. as far as the larger debate about the draft document that was released, it's important to remember we don't actually know what the supreme court is going to decide until it actually does decide. the justices are still working through the deliberative process , and our respect for the independence of the court requires that we let it proceed without interference. while tensions and emotions may be high, it's important to note that overruling earlier supreme
3:28 am
court decisions is nothing new. i look back and realized it was 1789 when the supreme court reversed its first prior decision. since that time there have been 232 instances where an earlier supreme court decision was overturned. i must say, thank goodness the court is willing, under some limited circumstances, to revisit its earlier decisions. the court's decisions overruling earlier precedents in some cases is fundamentally altered major aspects of our society. without question, one of the most notable was brown v. board of education. brown v. board of education was a landmark ruling overruling a case called plessy versus
3:29 am
ferguson which established the sameful separate but equal doctrine between blacks and whites in public transportation and public schools. brown said that's fundamentally discriminate yoar and will -- discriminating and will not stand because it does not meet the constitutional standards. it's tough today to imagine what our country would look like had the supreme court not reached its decision in brown nearly 70 years ago. classrooms, restrooms, water fountains, and even health care facilities would be designated by race. i'm confident i can speak for everyone in this chamber when i say thank goodness the court overturned plessy v. ferguson and reached the ruling that it did in brown v. board of education. there are more modern examples where the court overruled precedent like lawrence v. texas. it was overruled in 2003 by the
3:30 am
precedent established by bowers v. hardwick. it made it a crime to engage in same-sex conduct. so without a doubt, the court's decision to overturn its precedents has altered our society, and i suggest it has changed our society for the better in many of those instances. now i realize that given our political and ideological preferences, we might like or dislike the decision that the court ultimately makes, but former supreme court robert jackson said years ago, he said the supreme court is not final because it's right. it's right, he said, because it's final. but there is no such thing as an
3:31 am
inviolable decision or permanent decision by the supreme court. and again i say thank goodness. if prior decisions were set in stone, we would still be subject to egregious, shameful policies of the past like separate but equal. but the supreme court should always try to correct previously decided erroneous decisions, and they have criteria under the doctrine known as stare decisis for the circumstances under which they will revisit that precedent. the court understands that they can't willy-nilly overrule earlier decisions, and there's a very elaborate and exacting process and evaluation of analysis by which they do so. but i believe it's our responsibility here in the senate not to be part of the mob cooler heads must prevail, and
3:32 am
that means us. it starts with us. we have to stand for the independence of the court even when they render decisions we don't like. that's the only way to preserve the crown jewels of our form of government, which is the independent judiciary. the high court cannot be subjected to pressure campaigns by anyone -- elected officials, political activists, or anyone else. mr. president, i yield theeak fe
3:33 am
3:34 am
supreme court could mean for the justices. next ukrainian investor to the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on