'That Would Be Like Creating A Title Of Nobility': Jamie Raskin Pushes Back On GOP Legislation

last week

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week on "lawfare," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) spoke to a witness about GOP judicial reform legislation.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: https://x.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/forbes/
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um, first point, the Republicans demanded a special

00:04counsel in the Biden case. Um, and, uh, the Republicans demanded a special

00:12counsel to look into Trump because they said that, uh, the attorney general

00:18couldn't be trusted. So the special counsel was a demand on the Republican

00:22side. In any event, uh, just to get back to the heart of this matter in

00:29terms of the law, Professor Besky, you point out that the Supreme Court

00:33rendered this unanimous decision in Mesa versus California, establishing

00:37that there needs to be, uh, a federal question defense in order to remove

00:43from state court to federal court. And, uh, the burden of your testimony is to

00:48say that even if this bill were passed that our colleagues are proposing, it

00:55wouldn't alter that in any way because you can't overturn a constitutional

00:59ruling with a mere statute. So would there in fact be this intended effect

01:06of being of allowing Donald Trump and all of his associates to be removed

01:12from state court prosecutions, even if there's no federal independent federal

01:16question defense?

01:19Sorry. No. And I think it's really important to flag that Mesa considered

01:24and specifically rejected the United States argument in that case that

01:30federal officers can remove simply because they hold a federal office or

01:35simply because the suit charges conduct under color of that office. That was

01:41specifically the United States argument and Justice O'Connor specifically

01:45rejected. I mean, that would be like creating a title of nobility. If you

01:48hold a federal office, whether it's elective or appointed, you can never be

01:52charged under state law for murder, rape, armed robbery, theft, fraud,

01:58whatever it might be. It's just amazing to me that our colleagues would make

02:02such an argument that so breathtakingly anti federalism that the states are

02:06just drained of all sovereignty over the common law crimes that would take

02:11place within their state. So if if you're right, and I believe that Mr

02:16Terwilliger just conceded that you were, I wonder what you think about his

02:21suggestion is a way to repair their bill to simply say that there must be

02:25federal question jurisdiction, but that just is tautological. That just restates

02:29what the Supreme Court's already found, right? Well, I think what he's saying is

02:34it's enough that the statute says he's operating under color of his office and

02:43that that should satisfy Mesa. But that runs into the supremacy clause fallacy

02:48originally. I just that's the argument that Mesa rejected. Mesa said that's not

02:53enough. That does not satisfy the requisite federal ingredient necessary

02:58under Article 3, necessary to satisfy the Constitution. So that argument is a

03:03non-starter. They have rejected that unanimously. So what this really adds up

03:07to is some people complaining about the fact that Georgia law enforcement

03:11authorities and New York law enforcement authorities operating independently as

03:16states within the sovereignty they've got without any actual evidence that Joe

03:21Biden or Joe Biden's Department of Justice had anything to do with it

03:24decided to prosecute people for crimes committed under their laws. And they

03:30don't like the fact that they weren't able to remove to federal court where

03:33they felt that they had a more receptive audience because Donald Trump had

03:36appointed a lot of the judges, right? So what is there actually to do? The

03:42Supreme Court has rendered its decision in the matter, right? It has.

03:46And one thing I always teach my civil procedure students is when someone

03:50attempts to remove, it's as if you pull a lever. It automatically goes to the

03:55federal court. And it's the federal court that makes the call as to whether

03:59removal is or is not a good thing. And so Helverson is a federal judge. It is

04:05Helverson that made the call as to whether the requisites of the federal

04:10removal statute were satisfied. In the Mark Meadows case, you're saying? No.

04:13Helverson is in the Southern District of New York. He is, Helverson, I'm sorry.

04:17He is the person that made the call as to whether it was under color of the

04:22office and whether there was a color. So you're saying it was a federal court

04:26ruling on the question of removability. Correct. That would be the same also in

04:32Meadows' case, in the Mesa case. All of them go to federal court and what you

04:36have is federal judges saying with the Supreme Court backing them up, this

04:39doesn't belong in federal court. Correct. This is a run-of-the-mill state criminal

04:43law prosecution. It's not under color of office and there's no colorable federal

04:47defense. And our colleagues want to turn a federal case into, turn it into a

04:52federal case because Donald Trump doesn't like it. And with that, I'll yield

04:55back to you, Mr. Chairman. I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, five minutes.

05:01Thank you. Ms. Foley, can you describe for us what lawfare is? Lawfare is the use of

05:10legal processes, either civil or criminal.

'That Would Be Like Creating A Title Of Nobility': Jamie Raskin Pushes Back On GOP Legislation

Category

Transcript

Recommended