Zoe Lofgren: Trump's Attacks On Judges 'Defy The Constitution'

2 days ago

At Tuesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) decried President Trump's attack on judges and discussed universal injunctions with witnesses.

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: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Moffatt, for five minutes.

00:04Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems ironic that today's hearing is titled

00:09Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts,

00:13because if we really care about constitutional limits,

00:16we should start by confronting the recent attacks

00:20on judicial independence, attacks that themselves

00:24defy the Constitution. In the past few months, we've seen

00:28Elon Musk, President Trump, and even members of

00:31Congress call for the impeachment of judges, not for misconduct,

00:35but because they don't like their rulings, and that's not how

00:39a constitutional democracy works. You know, it's true that members of the

00:46judiciary were not elected by the Electoral

00:49College. That is beside the point. As my

00:52colleague, Mr. Massey, pointed out, when Congress enacts a law

00:59signed into law by the President, the President can overturn that law with a

01:04statement, which is essentially what an executive

01:07order is, and that judges are making that finding

01:12is the role that they have been assigned. Now,

01:17Professor Shaw, the recent federal court decisions, which, by the way,

01:22have been made by judges appointed by both political parties,

01:27have led to calls for the President's supporters to impeach

01:31these judges. Now, only 15 federal judges

01:35have been impeached by the House since 1804, and only eight

01:40have been removed by the Senate. I was involved in one of them

01:43for a very severe misconduct case. What's the standard

01:47in the Constitution for impeachment for a federal judge?

01:52Well, it's been understood that the impeachment, the constitutional language

01:55of treason, bribery, and other high crimes

01:57and misdemeanors applies with full force to federal judges, although it's actually

02:00not explicit in the Constitution, and there are some scholars

02:03who have raised some questions about it, but our practice is consistent that that

02:06is the same standard that applies to other officers.

02:08It applies to judges, and in terms of how our practice has implemented that

02:12standard, it has been exactly, as you said, in the 15 judicial impeachments

02:16that have resulted in eight convictions and removals, they have

02:19been for serious misconduct, things like habitual

02:22drunkenness, sexual assault, or corruption, bribery, those types of

02:27offenses. The one impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, Justice Chase,

02:30was somewhat different because it involved explicit partisanship from the

02:34bench, but there you had repeated jury charges

02:38and actually kind of electioneering from the bench

02:40that also clearly distinguish the conduct at issue there

02:44from any of the rulings at issue here. So just to be, you know, succinct,

02:49none of these historical examples have anything to do with the substance of the

02:53rulings rendered by the judges who were subject to impeachment.

02:57Well, and even for those who cite the section of the Constitution that

03:01judges serve during times of good behavior,

03:05that wouldn't include disagreement with the outcome of a case.

03:10No, I mean, I would say the combination of the good behavior language

03:14and the impeachment language has suggested that the way to implement the

03:17requirement of good behavior is through impeachment. There is no other

03:21mechanism that we have ever used to remove judges

03:24other than the impeachment mechanism, and certainly

03:27there's nothing to suggest that disagreement with a ruling, whether

03:30we're talking about as a matter of good behavior or

03:32the specific impeachment language, would ever be the basis for seeking to remove

03:36a federal judge. Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the

03:40Senate Judiciary Committee and hardly a bleeding heart liberal,

03:45recently said, and this is a quote, you can't impeach a judge because you

03:49disagree with their opinion. I take it you agree with Senator

03:54Grassley's statement there? I do. Now, would doing

03:58so be damaging to our constitutional system of

04:01separation of powers, and if so, why would that be?

04:07I mean, I do want to be clear that I think that there is a healthy

04:10inter-branch debate and dialogue that can include criticisms, including sharp

04:14criticisms, of the rulings handed down by district judges, appellate judges,

04:17Supreme Court justices, and that can include hearings that

04:21consider and maybe adopt legislative change,

04:24right? Obviously, Congress has considerable authority to regulate the

04:26jurisdiction of the federal court, so I don't think any of that is unhealthy or

04:30destructive, but I do think that moving into an era

04:33in which substantive disagreement with the

04:36rulings of federal judges gave rise to impeachment proceedings

04:40would involve an escalation of this kind of inter-branch warfare and a

04:44politicization of the judiciary that would be extremely damaging

04:48to judicial independence and to the role of courts in our democracy. Thank you

04:51very much. Ms. Romero, I found your testimony

04:54riveting, and I'm sorry that you and your neighbors went through such a nightmare.

04:58There is not a single member of this committee

05:01on either side of the aisle that doesn't want violent criminals who

05:06in this situation to be deported. The issue is

05:09standing up for the rule of law, making sure they're due process

05:13when that is done, and I want you to know that I listened very carefully to your

05:17testimony. I'm sorry what you went through.

05:21Thank you very much. Thank you.

Zoe Lofgren: Trump's Attacks On Judges 'Defy The Constitution'

Category

Transcript

Recommended