[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2681-S2683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Conference

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last month, the U.S. District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas resisted Democrats' latest attempt to 
intimidate the Federal judiciary.
  This all started a year ago, when Senate Majority Leader Schumer sent 
a letter to the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, urging 
him to change the ways that cases were assigned in that district. In 
short, the majority leader is unhappy with single-judge divisions in 
Texas that have handed down rulings that he doesn't agree with.
  Well, forget for a moment the fact that the left has been more than 
happy to file lawsuits in courts they believe will be friendly to their 
arguments. Set that aside for a moment. But the majority leader seeks 
to avoid more liberal losses in the courtrooms. He wants the chief 
judge to ignore Federal law--literally, ignore the law--which 
establishes which courts have jurisdiction and venue over a given case. 
As Senator Schumer sees it, this change, which would create a random 
selection assignment system, would prevent judges who are nominated by 
Republican Presidents from hearing as many high-profile cases.

  Well, the majority leader might be forgiven for his naivete or his 
misunderstanding of actually what controls what venue and what 
jurisdiction is under the law, but the problem is that he went a step 
further. He ended his letter with a clear threat. If the Northern 
District didn't comply with his demands, he said, ``Congress will 
consider more prescriptive requirements.'' In other words, he said: Do 
what we want, and, if you don't, we will do it for you.
  Well, for some reason, the Senator from New York thinks he should be 
the one to decide how cases are assigned in the Northern District of 
Texas.
  Late last month, Chief Judge David Godbey wrote the majority leader a 
letter reminding him of something that the leader already knew, which 
is that assignment of cases is not governed by politics but by existing 
law. A Federal statute that Congress passed, signed by a President, 
gives district courts the authority to decide how to assign cases for a 
given district.
  Unsurprisingly, there is no requirement that chief judges consult 
with the majority leader of the Senate when deciding how to assign 
cases within their district. There is this thing called separation of 
powers that the majority leader may have overlooked or forgotten about.
  As Chief Justice Godbey noted in his letter, the district judges in 
the Northern District of Texas met to discuss this topic and reached a 
consensus not to make the changes requested by Senator Schumer.
  While the chief judge of the Northern District was not swayed by the 
majority leader's implicit threat, that wasn't the end of the story. 
Regrettably, the Judicial Conference of the United States, in an effort 
to placate the majority leader, recommended that district courts across 
the country randomly assign certain cases that seek to invalidate State 
or Federal law. In other words, now the Judicial Conference has gotten 
into the act, ignoring existing laws passed by Congress and signed by 
Presidents that establish which courts have jurisdiction and venue over 
a given case.
  Well, that provoked another telling reaction on the part of our 
Democratic colleagues. The majority leader rejoiced that this guidance 
that he sought would prevent ``MAGA-right plaintiffs'' from being able 
to ``all but guarantee a handpicked MAGA-right judge.''
  How insulting is that? These are life-tenured judges nominated by a 
President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and the majority leader is 
suggesting that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold the 
Constitution and laws of the United States can be depended on to reach 
a predetermined result. Well, I know that is politics, but that is not

[[Page S2682]]

the way the laws are supposed to be interpreted or applied by the 
courts.
  Thank goodness we have an independent judiciary in this country. It 
is one of the things that makes us unique in the world among 
democracies--a truly independent judiciary that calls balls and 
strikes; that interprets the Constitution and laws and applies them to 
a given case, even when politicians get caught up with their rhetoric 
and their political desires.
  Well, the majority whip--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--
echoed the majority leader's position and noted that changing the way 
cases are assigned, he says, ``will help restore the public's trust in 
our court system and strengthen our democracy.''
  I think what undermines the public's trust in our court system and 
undermines our democracy are these baseless attacks on judges, assuming 
that they are Republican judges or Democratic judges or MAGA-right 
judges--whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess that means they were 
appointed by President Trump, but also confirmed by the U.S. Senate. 
The irony of calling a Senate-confirmed Federal judge a ``MAGA judge'' 
in talking about the importance of public trust in the judiciary is 
pretty rich.
  I want to commend Chief Judge Godbey and the judges of the Northern 
District of Texas from resisting this political pressure and commend 
them for doing what they know is right for their district and the 
people who live and litigate within that district. This was, without a 
doubt, the right decision for multiple reasons.
  As a practical matter, the majority leader's preferred case 
assignment scheme would likely subject litigants to logistical 
nightmares. I know Texas is a lot bigger than New York. But take the 
Northern District of Texas, for example. It is one of the largest 
judicial districts in the country. It stretches over 100 out of our 254 
counties and encompasses more than 96,000 acres. If the Northern 
District of Texas were a State, it would be the ninth largest State. If 
Senator Schumer had his way, a suit filed in one division could 
ultimately be heard by any division within the Northern District.
  Someone--say a woman challenging the State's abortion laws in Fort 
Worth--could have to travel all the way to Lubbock for her day in 
court. And a company in Dallas challenging government overreach or 
perhaps a new environmental regulation would have to go all the way to 
Amarillo to have that case decided, under this random assignment 
system. This would obviously create a lot of burdens on litigants--my 
constituents, Texans, American citizens. It would create burdensome and 
expensive hurdles that both parties in a case would have to overcome 
for no real purpose.
  We all know that cases decided by district judges get considered by 
circuit courts--appellate courts--and, potentially, even the U.S. 
Supreme Court. But the majority leader's political pressure on the 
Northern District would ultimately harm access to justice for those 
litigants who don't have the time or the money to travel long distances 
or to pay their lawyers in order to do so.
  But the more fundamental issue is the constitutional one. Under the 
law, only Congress has the power to pass venue changes--that is where a 
case is heard--not the courts. The courts apply laws that the Congress 
passes and were signed into law by the President. The Constitution 
vests Congress with the sole authority to determine the structure and 
organization of the lower courts, and that includes venue laws, where 
cases are heard. From there, each individual district has the latitude 
to determine how cases are ultimately assigned.
  So if the majority leader wants to change the way that venue laws are 
applied, he can try to do so, but he has to do so through a change in 
the law, not by trying to intimidate the judges in that division.
  Over the last years, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly 
launched deeply concerning attacks against America's independent 
judiciary. Several years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues 
threatened that the Supreme Court would be ``restructured'' if it 
failed to rule a certain way in a case related to the Second Amendment.
  The following year, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, 
stood in front of the Supreme Court and threatened two sitting Supreme 
Court Justices by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to 
rule in a case involving abortion. 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.

  How shameful on the part of the majority leader to stand on the steps 
of the Supreme Court and to threaten the sitting Justices unless they 
ruled in a particular way.
  The next year, just a few months after President Biden took office, 
our Democratic colleagues in both the Senate and the House introduced a 
bill that would allow him to pack the Supreme Court with four new 
liberal Justices.
  A couple years later, Senator Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, 
advocated for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court 
order from a Northern District of Texas court because he didn't agree 
with it. He actually said that the Biden administration should ignore 
the ruling of a Federal judge--not appeal it; ignore it.
  Then 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Supreme 
Court's budget if it failed to meet their demand to implement a new 
code of ethics that had our Democratic colleagues' stamp of approval.
  And, more recently, some of our Democratic colleagues have called on 
Justice Sotomayor to retire so President Biden can install a new 
liberal Justice, likely to serve for many years in the future.
  Democrats' attacks on our judiciary have varied, but the theme is 
always the same. It is all about control; it is all about politics; it 
is all about outcomes--not justice and the rule of law.
  Their message is: Deliver the wins we want, impose a code of ethics 
that we wrote, and retire when we say.
  Well, we all know that lifetime tenure is provided for Federal judges 
to provide for their independence so they can't be intimidated, so they 
can't be forced to retire. And we can't cut their pay for the same 
reason.
  Forget this idea of fair and impartial courts. They want judges who 
fall in line, salute smartly, and follow orders. As I said earlier 
today, an independent judiciary is essential to our democracy and the 
rule of law. It is the crown jewels of our government, of our 
Constitution. The courts cannot and must not be subjected to pressure 
campaigns from anyone--politicians, political activists, or anybody 
else.
  The Federal judiciary certainly is not subservient to Congress; it is 
a separate and coequal branch of the government--coequal. Our Founders 
deliberately designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any 
one branch from forcing the other two to bend to its will. But that is 
exactly what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do, and it is 
wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped.
  Today's Democratic party is trying to blur the lines between the 
legislative and judicial branches of our government in order to secure 
partisan wins. And there is a reason why their efforts haven't had much 
success. Their proposals are unpopular. They are unwarranted, and they 
are flatout unconstitutional.
  I am glad the Northern District of Texas did not cave to Senator 
Schumer's demands or the Judicial Conference's ill-conceived guidance. 
Democrats have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to 
secure partisan wins in the courts.
  They ought to try passing laws here in Congress with open debate and 
opportunity for everybody to participate in the process; but the 
problem is, when they lose legislative battles, they simply rely on the 
courts to get the wins that they ultimately want.
  But the American people can rest assured that Republicans will 
continue to defend America's independent judiciary and fight these 
attacks no matter what form they may take.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2683]]

  

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak for up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.