Deborah Ross Absolutely Shreds Trump For 'Disrespect' To The Judiciary And U.S. Citizens

Forbes Breaking News

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) slammed President Trump for his "disrespect for the judiciary."

Transcript

00:00A gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ross, for five minutes.

00:03Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

00:08This is an extremely important issue for our country and for the future of our country.

00:15But let me be clear before I ask my question.

00:19Donald Trump's contempt for the judiciary is not new.

00:23He has fought civil cases against him because of real estate deals and people he hasn't paid.

00:31He's fought victims that he has sexually assaulted and he has been convicted of sexually assaulting.

00:39His disrespect for the judiciary is based on his disrespect for anybody who doesn't let him do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

00:50And he is very dangerous right now because he is the president of the United States of America.

00:57And we are seeing him treat the people of the United States of America the same way he treated those poor contractors he never paid.

01:07The same way he treated women who he sexually assaulted.

01:11He is doing the same thing to the United States of America.

01:15So, Professor Shaw, on February 9th, Donald Trump told reporters that no judge, quote,

01:23should be allowed to rule against his administration's unconstitutional changes to how our government operates.

01:31And the next day, Vice President J.D. Vance posted on X,

01:37judges aren't allowed to control the executive branch's legitimate power.

01:42Now, just to be clear, does the president decide what issues judges get to rule on under our Constitution?

01:54No, really since, you know, Marbury v. Madison, 1803, judges and the Supreme Court, right,

01:59sitting at the top of the federal judiciary, have had the final word on the meaning of the Constitution

02:04and the laws and the consistency of laws or executive action with the Constitution.

02:08So, in our system, it has been the courts and not the president who have had the final word.

02:13Thank you for that.

02:15So, I am going to quote Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Ludig, who I can testify, no liberal.

02:23I had a case in front of him.

02:25He was a tough customer in the Fourth Circuit.

02:28He was appointed by George H.W. Bush, and he recently noted in an op-ed for The New York Times,

02:36quote,

02:37A country without an independent judiciary is not one in which any of us should want to live,

02:43except perhaps Mr. Trump while he resides in the White House.

02:48Trump has railed against the federal judiciary for years, as I said in my opening,

02:52and especially now that his administration is losing in courts nationwide.

02:58So, Professor Shaw, what could Congress do to stand up against Trump's attacks on the judiciary

03:06to ensure that it remains functioning, independent, and co-equal in our system of governance?

03:16Well, you know, I certainly don't think resolutions of impeachment,

03:19for no other reason than rulings that, you know, members disagree with,

03:24are constructive from the perspective of preserving judicial independence.

03:28I mean, one thing that I would imagine that bipartisan support could, you know,

03:31easily rally behind is judicial security, right?

03:34We are in a moment in which we have read about the U.S. Marshal Service concern

03:39about heightened levels of threats to federal judges.

03:41When there was an actual threat against Justice Kavanaugh in 2022 on a bipartisan basis,

03:46security for Supreme Court justices was increased.

03:49But I'm not sure that we've seen anything to that effect now.

03:52So, shoring up judicial independence at a moment where, frankly,

03:57there are not a lot of other functioning checks on the executive branch is, to my mind,

04:02critically important.

04:03And, you know, maybe that's one way this body could devote itself to doing that.

04:06And then, going back to the impeachment issue that my colleague from Vermont discussed,

04:14if Trump is successful in getting judges impeached in the House, I don't think he would be successful

04:19with the final decision in the Senate.

04:23Is he allowed to demand that a judicial nominee promise not to rule against him or his administration

04:31if he, under his appointment power?

04:35You know, there's nothing in the Constitution that speaks to that one way or another.

04:38But it is certainly a very established tradition, bipartisan and longstanding,

04:43that presidents do not secure commitments, in particular with respect to particular rulings

04:48from nominees they are considering.

04:49You know, certainly the Senate, in its advice and consent role,

04:53could seek to enforce that longstanding principle by asking nominees if they have been, you know,

04:58asked or have given any kinds of assurances.

05:01But it would be wildly inconsistent with our practice for a president to seek such assurance from a nominee.

05:07Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

05:09Gentle lady yields back.

05:10Does the ranking member have a unanimous consent request?

Category

Transcript

Recommended