'Will It Surprise You If We See A Federal Judge Murdered?': Eric Swalwell Grills Trump Judges

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asked Trump-appointed judges and Judicial Conference Chairs Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder about political violence.

Transcript

00:00Judge Scudder. You've always been my favorite. I hope you know that. Thank you,

00:06Daryl. Thank you, Daryl. And we don't shut down the government on this side.

00:09Mr. Chairman? Okay, I spoke. I deserve this. Yes, please. I had a unanimous consent request that I

00:19had neglected. The general state is unanimous. The unanimous consent request was to enter into

00:24the record an article from The Hill that quotes the Speaker of the House saying, and I quote,

00:29we can eliminate an entire district court. We have power over funding, over the courts,

00:32and all these other things, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going

00:36to act. Touche. Without objection, I will also place in the record Leader Schumer in 2022 saying,

00:46Kavanaugh, he'll pay the price as Roe resurfaces. Without objection, both will be placed in the

00:52record. He's still my favorite colleague from California with me. Please.

00:59Thank you. Judge Scudder, will it surprise you if we see a federal judge murdered?

01:08I mean, that would be tragic beyond words, and I think that's implicit in the question,

01:14and I hope everyone would recognize that. Is the threat level that we see today against federal

01:19judges at a temperature where you see yourself and your colleagues changing their own security

01:29posture? Judge St. Eve may want to weigh in on this from the resource perspective, but there is no

01:36question that judicial security is an enormous priority. It's a priority that has intensified in

01:45recent years, and it's responsive to everything that you all are recognizing across, you know,

01:54across all of the questioning that we're hearing today, and your support for our security needs is

02:03essential to us. So judges, judges can go about doing the duty that we've talked about in the hearing

02:09so far. And I support that, and I think most of my colleagues support that. I'm concerned recently

02:15the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan, said to Punchbowl News on June 13, he sees few members excited

02:22to increase judicial security. And then Chip Roy, also a member of the committee, said on that same day,

02:29maybe they, the judges, should stop screwing everything up. My concern is that we have put

02:37your security in the hands of the executive branch, and it's often lately that the commander-in-chief

02:43will tweet out or issue statements against judges, and now your security is in the hands of somebody who

02:50doesn't like a ruling that one of your colleagues has made. That's why I introduced what's called the

02:55Marshals Act. Every member of the Democratic side supports it. I hope Mr. Issa remains open-minded

03:02to supporting it as well, but this would move judicial security from the executive branch. It would have

03:08the chief justice of the Supreme Court appoint the U.S. Marshals. Essentially, judges would become in

03:15charge of their own security. What do you think about that, Judge St. Eve? Thank you for the question.

03:23The U.S. Marshals are on the front line of our security. They have the protection details. They

03:30investigate threats. We are very thankful for their extraordinary efforts. I can tell you in Chicago,

03:37the U.S. Marshals are incredibly professional and responsive, and any time I have had any issue,

03:43they have responded immediately and appropriately. And although they aren't part of our budget,

03:49we hope that they are fully funded. In terms of a separate force, that's not something that

03:56I have looked into, and I don't believe the judicial conference has a position.

04:00So it wouldn't be a separate force. It would essentially, right now, the president appoints

04:05the U.S. Marshals. They're confirmed by the Senate. This would move judicial security, the U.S. Marshals,

04:10to appointment by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So essentially,

04:14the Marshal Service would fall under the judicial branch. And so that way, you would still have to

04:19come to Congress to receive, you know, an appropriation for the judicial branch and its

04:25security. But it would allow the branch that is facing security threats to have more agility

04:32in surging where security is needed. And the concern is that if a judge in their deliberations

04:40is worried that a ruling that goes against the executive branch, when the executive branch has

04:45shown a willingness to issue harsh statements at judges that could bring threats, they may let that

04:52creep into their deliberations and not be as independent as we want. So Judge Scudder, I'd welcome

04:58your thoughts on moving the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch.

05:03Yeah, I don't know, like Judge Steve, I don't know that the judicial conference has taken a position

05:09on the point. And therefore, I can't give you that. But embedded all throughout your question and

05:16everything that you're acknowledging is the priority to enhance judicial security wherever

05:23the Marshals are located. I completely agree with everything Judge St. Eve has said about the

05:29Marshals. This is a very, very professional, committed group of men and women. And in my experience in

05:36Chicago, they are A plus. And I want to make it clear to Mr. Issa, because he and his colleagues

05:41often point out that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious attempt on his life and his family. And that was

05:48wrong. And that should be condemned. And it has been condemned by our side. And my introducing this

05:57legislation is entirely motivated by the fact that I don't know who the president will be four years from

06:03now, eight years from now, 25 years from now. But I do know that what we have seen where threats are

06:10escalating against judges, I think regardless of who the party is at the White House, their

06:16independence needs to remain independent of their own security threats. And so, Mr. Issa, that's why

06:23I would suggest moving it to the judicial branch so they can be in charge of their own security.

06:29And with that, if the gentleman would yield, for the record, because I think this is

Category

Transcript

Recommended