-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks, several Federal judges have issued orders blocking unlawful actions taken by the Trump administration. In response, the administration's officials and allies have made worrisome statements criticizing Federal judges and the process of judicial review. Elon Musk, an unelected bureaucrat who is assisting this administration, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Federal judges and questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges that is enshrined in article III of the Constitution.

President Trump's choice of Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, suggested on a podcast that the President set up a fake courtroom in the White House where ``he can just start making judicial decisions.'' Mr. Bongino added:

If the judge is the executive, why can't the executive be the judge? Ask your stupid liberal friends that.

As a reminder, Mr. Bongino is second-in-command at the FBI, the most powerful investigative Agency in the world. If he sounds like a political animal out of his element, you would not be wrong.

But Mr. Bongino is not alone. Last week, a nominee to a senior position at the Department of Justice testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance, a public official is bound by a court decision.

Let that sink in for a moment. This is a person who wants a senior position at the Department of Justice testifying under oath and saying:

There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance, a public official is bound by a court decision.

In a social media post, Vice President Vance falsely asserted that ``judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'' This is merely the latest in a long line of claims by the Vice President that a President can defy court orders.

President Trump himself recently posted:

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

That is a line that echoes others who believed they were above the law, a rationalization more common to leaders of a political coup in a banana republic.

Let me repeat that quote from President Trump:

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

These efforts to intimidate judges and undermine the rule of law do not stop with these statements. The Speaker of the House said he agrees with Vice President Vance and urged the courts to ``take a step back.'' Three Members of the House of Representatives have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Federal judges simply because they ruled against the Trump administration.

These remarks that I have quoted are not only wrong, they are constitutionally dangerous, and they pose a serious threat to our constitutional order and the separation of powers.

Since the Supreme Court's landmark Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, there has been a broad bipartisan consensus throughout our history that, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, and I quote:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, the courts have the last word, and that responsibility takes on an outsized importance when the executive branch shows little regard for the limits of its constitutional power, as this administration already has.

Under article II of the Constitution, the executive branch is charged with ``taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' but President Trump and his administration have ignored that responsibility. Let me give you one clear-cut, unequivocal example. President Trump summarily fired 18 inspectors general weeks into his Presidency. He wanted these investigative officials out of the picture. He did this despite the law that requires him as President to inform the Congress of the decision to dismiss or transfer an inspector general and provide a detailed explanation for doing so--that is what the law requires--at least 30 days before taking any action against them.

When the executive branch blatantly violates the law, it is essential that the other branches of government fulfill their constitutional role and responsibilities.

Thankfully, in the first weeks of the new Trump administration, the judicial branch has lived up to its responsibility. Judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, where appropriate, provided a check on the administration when it oversteps.

Now, the fact that a court has made a decision does not mean you have to agree with it.

John Kennedy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana, recently admonished two Trump nominees who suggested the executive branch can ignore a court order. Here is what my colleague Senator Kennedy said:

Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever. Now, you can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign.

Now, I have disagreed with judicial decisions, including decisions of the Supreme Court. When that happens, I explain why I disagree. But I have never advocated ignoring or defying a court order. I never will.

More than 60 years ago, President John Kennedy spoke about the importance of the rule of law in a speech at Vanderbilt University. As President Kennedy put it, ``for one man to defy a law or court order he does not like is to invite others to defy those which they do not like, leading to a breakdown of all justice and all order.''

We cannot allow any administration to defy a court order, period, and we cannot stand idly by as the President and his allies undermine the judiciary by attacking judges.

That is why I introduced the resolution we are considering today. I want to thank my colleagues who cosponsored it and are joining me on the floor in this block of time.

Our resolution simply affirms that the Constitution vests the judicial power in the Federal courts and affirms that both the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.

These are not partisan talking points; they are basic principles of constitutional law, so fundamental and so essential to our constitutional order that they should go without saying. But in light of recent comments and actions by President Trump, Vice President Vance, and his administration and allies, some things must be said. So I ask my colleagues to say with one clear voice: The U.S. Senate supports the Constitution, the judicial branch, and the rule of law.

Every Member of this body has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to fulfill their oaths today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my great honor to represent the State of Illinois in this Chamber for many years, and I have been present for a lot of proceedings which are memorable, some historic. I can't think of one, in its simplicity, that is as important as what we have witnessed in the last hour of debate.

We are literally asking a fundamental question about our democracy that is seldom asked. It is rare that we have a circumstance where we have to ask it, but we certainly understand in this situation that it must be resolved.

What I tried to do in establishing this resolution was to make it as pointed, as direct, and as simple as possible. There are ``Whereas'' clauses, which are of little or no consequence, but the resolution clause is so simple and direct that I want to repeat it before I make my request for unanimous consent:

Resolved, That the Senate affirms that--

(1) Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests the ``judicial Power of the United States . . . in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'';

(2) as Chief Justice Marshall held in the Supreme Court's landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is''; and

(3) the Constitution of the United States and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.

That is it. It acknowledges article III establishing the courts. It acknowledges Marbury v. Madison, one of the very first cases any student of law in the United States must understand. And, No. 3, it says clearly the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.

I am sorry that we have reached a point in our history where we even have to ask the question, but shame on us if we don't.

This is not a political resolution. I have tried to make it as apolitical as possible because it gets to these basic principles.

I want to thank my colleagues who came forward on the floor to say a word in support of this resolution.

Res. 108, Affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, which is at the desk; further, I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Does this include, in one, request, both modifications?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. So I want to make certain particularly that I understand the modification to the resolution clause. If I understand it correctly, you are adding a word. Perhaps you could clarify that as to whether or not there is a requirement of the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. Do you modify that particular sentence?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. And do you add the word ``lawful''?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think I want to clarify for the record and for history so there is no dispute. There have been differences of opinion about court orders in the past. I would say without fear of contradiction that although President Biden's name has been mentioned repeatedly, particularly when it comes to the forgiveness of student loan debt, there was never any acknowledgement of defiance of any court order, period.

There was a court order against the Biden administration, and President Biden did not agree with it but went forward with a different approach to the law. He was never found in contempt, nor was any suggestion made that he violated a court order. His name has been mentioned many times, but that just doesn't square with the reality.

Here is the difficulty. Think about this for a second. Under Marbury v. Madison, we basically said it is the province and duty of the judicial department, judges and courts, to say what the law is. Then the modification being made by the Senator from Iowa says: You only have to abide by lawful court rulings.

Did I state that correctly?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. That is a fair criticism. I want to make it clear I am not saying that President Trump has violated a court order. I don't know that he has. The question is, Whenever an order is issued either for him or against him, will he obey the order? Will he acknowledge that that is his lawful responsibility? That is what it comes down to.

I am not looking prospectively or in history--his brief time in the Presidency this round--but, rather, saying that whatever the court order in the future, whether for him or against him, he is bound by that court order. You have added the word ``lawful'' court order.

I am not sure--if the court is to decide the law, and they decide in his favor, then the law is acknowledged to be binding on him and his actions. Conversely, if the ruling is against him and the court order is against him, I hope you would acknowledge that that is lawful and that he has to follow it even though they ruled against him. That is simple constitutional law. I am not presuming how the court will rule. I am saying that however it rules, he is bound by that ruling. Do you agree with me, Senator?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I acknowledge that as well. The question is, Does that mean that the executive branch is bound by the decision of the court and has to follow a court order, whether it is for or against the administration?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. That is basic midwestern philosophy, which we share, and I don't disagree with you. But I think the addition of the word ``lawful'' in the final sentence equivocates on what the Constitution's clarity is. So I am going to object with the possibility that we can work on this together to see if there is a way to reach a conclusion.

I think this is so basic. You have served honorably in the U.S. Senate for your entire career, and the point that I am getting to is that we ought to make certain that, moving forward, there is clarity on this most basic checks-and-balances constitutional provision.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source