At last Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) promoted an amendment to protect Supreme Court Justices from arrests due to ruling against the Executive Branch.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Explain his amendment. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Fox News asked the White House
00:04Press Secretary, Caroline Levitt, the other day, would the president ever arrest a Supreme Court
00:11justice? Seems a pretty straightforward answer. She could have just said no, but she didn't answer
00:18the question. She left the door open. So I thought that this would be an opportunity for some
00:23bipartisanship to close the door on that possible question. And so I wrote a very simple amendment
00:29Mr. Chairman. It reads no funds made available. And this title may be used for the arrest,
00:35detention or criminal prosecution of any Supreme Court justice on the basis that that justice has
00:40ruled against the executive branch in any case or controversy before the justice. So it doesn't
00:46say if they committed a crime because no one's above the law, of course. It just says they won't be
00:50arrested if they rule against the administration. This should seem to be very simple. It seemed to
00:57be you should want to take it, be clear. Caroline Levitt couldn't be, this is your opportunity to
01:02clear that up, that we're not going to arrest, you know, Justice Thomas, even though he goes on planes
01:08and does stuff with Ginny, right? But we're not going to arrest him, right? We're not going to go
01:12arrest him. You should want to vote for that, right? You know, he goes on yachts and, you know,
01:18does all that. We're not going to arrest him, right? You know, because we want to make sure that
01:23it's clear. So I just figured I'd give you the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. That's the amendment.
01:31I wave back. I yield back. I mean, unless you want to talk about it.
01:35Gentleman yields back.
01:40The question occurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.
01:44Even though it seems to be nonsensical, it's actually a very sensible amendment, which I support.
01:58Just last week, we had the attorney general and the FBI to go out and arrest a sitting judge,
02:08a state court judge out of Milwaukee. Perp walked her to jail. They could have asked her to turn
02:17herself in, but the charges are dubious. She was just simply administering the affairs of her court,
02:25and they have charged her with preventing the apprehension of a alien that ICE wanted to deport
02:36out of her courtroom and courthouse. And because she took action to continue the operations of her
02:47courtroom and the rendition of justice in a manner that was suitable for the state courts,
02:55she has been charged with crime. And that was meant to send a message, not just to state court judges,
03:09but to federal court judges, and indeed to Supreme Court justices. And so it's not outlandish to think that
03:18a president who is violating all of the norms would go so far as to arrest a justice who spoke out
03:27against him and who ruled against him. And so I think this is a very common sense amendment.
03:36And it is a no-brainer. It's not going to cost anybody anything to support this,
03:42it's to go on record and say that we do not support the arrest of a sitting Supreme Court justice.
03:51There's nothing wrong with this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it. I do and
03:59vote yes and I yield back.