'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. Mr. Chairman?

00:13Okay, I spoke. I deserve this. Yes, please. I had a unanimous consent request that I

00:19had neglected. The gentleman said it's 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.

02:14Recently, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan, said to Punchbowl News on June 13,

02:21he sees few members excited to increase judicial security. And then Chip Roy, also a member of the

02:27committee, said on that same day, maybe they, the judges, should stop screwing everything up.

02:34My concern is that we have put your security in the hands of the executive branch, and it's often

02:40lately that the commander-in-chief will tweet out or issue statements against judges, and now

02:48your security is in the hands of somebody who doesn't like a ruling that one of your colleagues

02:53has made. That's why I introduced what's called the Marshalls Act. Every member of the Democratic side

02:58supports it. I hope Mr. Issa remains open-minded to supporting it as well, but this would move

03:05judicial security from the executive branch. It would have the chief justice of the Supreme Court

03:11appoint the U.S. Marshals. Essentially, judges would become in charge of their own security.

03:18What do you think about that, Judge St. Eve?

03:21Thank you for the question. The U.S. Marshals are on the front line of our security. They

03:28have the protection details. They investigate threats. We are very thankful for their extraordinary

03:35efforts. I can tell you in Chicago, the U.S. Marshals are incredibly professional and responsive,

03:41and any time I have had any issue, they have responded immediately and appropriately, and although

03:47they aren't part of our budget, we hope that they are fully funded. In terms of a separate force,

03:54that's not something that I have looked into, and I don't believe the judicial conference has a

04:00position. So 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, the Marshalls service would

04:16fall under the judicial branch, and so that way you would still have to come to Congress to receive

04:20an appropriation for the judicial branch and its security, but it would allow the branch that is

04:29facing security threats to have more agility in surging where security is needed. And the concern

04:37is that if a judge in their deliberations is worried that a ruling that goes against the executive branch

04:44when the executive branch has shown a willingness to issue harsh statements at judges that could bring

04:50threats, they may let that creep into their deliberations and not be as independent as we

04:56want. So Judge Scudder, I'd welcome your thoughts on moving the marshals from the executive branch

05:01to the judicial branch. Yeah, I don't know, like Judge Steve, I don't know that the judicial conference has

05:07taken a position on the point, and therefore I can't give you that. But embedded all throughout

05:15your question and everything that you're acknowledging is the priority to enhance judicial

05:21security wherever the marshals are located. I completely agree with everything Judge St. Eve has

05:28said about the marshals. This is a very, very professional, committed group of men and women,

05:35and in my experience in Chicago, they are A-plus. And I want to make it clear to Mr. Issa because

05:40he and his colleagues often point out that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious attempt on his life and his

05:47family, and that was wrong, and that should be condemned, and it has been condemned by our side.

05:55And my introducing this legislation is entirely motivated by the fact that I don't know who the

06:01president will be four years from now, eight years from now, 25 years from now. But I do know that

06:07what we have seen where threats are escalating against judges, I think regardless of who the

06:14party is at the White House, their independence needs to remain independent of their own security

06:21threats. And so, Mr. Issa, that's why I would suggest moving it to the judicial branch so they can be

06:27in charge of their own security. And with that, if the gentleman would yield, for the record,

06:33because I think this is

Category

Transcript

Recommended