'Yes Or No?!': Sparks Fly Between Jim Jordan, Adam Schiff, And More In Epic Supreme Court Debate

um well who seeks recognition on the legislative gentleman from California I think it's the Democrats turn gentleman of California is recognized for five minutes Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk the gentleman has an amendment the Discord will report Mr chairman Mr chairman appointable gentleman from Alabama has a reserves a point of order Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr2aa offered by Mr objection the amendment will be considered as read the gentleman from California is recognized for uh to speak on his Amendment thank you chairman my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that this bill will bring back power to Congress but in fact what it really does is give more power to the Judiciary and a supreme court that has become a partisan institution with a reactionary social agenda one that has disregarded Decades of precedent and denied millions of Americans the right to reproductive freedom one that has also taken aim at Clear Water and clear air protections and one thing that should be absolutely certain and that is until the Supreme Court adopts an enforceable code of ethics they should not be entrusted with even more power my Amendment today is very simple it would allow Mr Fitzgerald's Bill to apply to courts if and when and only when all federal courts have adopted an enforceable code of ethics the code of ethics for the Supreme Court is badly needed as we've seen with serious allegations of undisclosed gifts and undisclosed travel and undisclosed lodging and undisclosed payments and benefits or compensation received by justices or their families from individuals and law firms with business before The Supreme Court a code of ethics is absolutely essential uh this amendment which would acquire that before these kind of changes go into effect that all federal courts have a code of ethics is a small step to dealing with a very large problem at the Supreme Court in fact I think term limits on the Supreme Court in which justices after an appropriate time would be required to relocate to the court of appeals or the district court are also an important reform and I think the court needs to be expanded given that the court was packed by Mitch McConnell depriving a Democratic president of an appointment because he said the election was too close and then in the most jarringly hypocritical fashion jamming down another appointment during a republican presidency when people were literally voting for Joe Biden for president but nevertheless although those larger steps I think are very necessary we can begin the process of restoring some confidence in the Court by at least insisting on an enforceable code of ethics no more power for the court until there is accountability and with that I would the gentleman yield I'd be happy to heal thank you I'd simply like to point out that um the gentleman makes a very good point about the size of the Supreme Court but there's another reason also historically the Supreme Court there's been one Supreme Court Justice for every circuit there are currently 13 circuits so we're behind the we're behind the times and we ought to have four more Supreme Court Justices for that reason in addition to the reasons the gentleman expressed reclaiming my time I thank the the gentleman I think is absolutely right and you can add to that the extraordinary increase in the caseload that goes before the court if we were just looking at efficiency but of course there's so much more at stake with the packing of the current Supreme Court but in any event this amendment is about some accountability some enforcement some presence even of a code of ethics if if we see nothing else we've seen I think with the current Court the proof that power understand unrestrained by even a code of ethics can lead to the worst kind of results and with that Mr chairman I yield back gentleman yields back gentlemen from Alabama withdrawals this point of order the gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized to speak on the amendment it's so interesting that I have to read the Constitution of the United States to the folks on the other side so that they can understand how our government actually works according to article 3 the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress May from time to time ordain and establish the judges both of the Supreme and inferior Court shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall let stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office section 2 the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and Equity arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made under their Authority the courts already have the authority to decide questions of law de novo in fact other than when a federal agency is involved in the case they do it every day that's their job whether it is federal courts or state courts their job is to decide is to interpret the law uh Marbury versus Madison we can go back that far as well the fact is that the Chevron Doctrine has stripped the courts have the power to interpret the law all that the sofa does is restore the balance of power and the authority of the courts that existed prior to the Chevron decision this amendment is not only unnecessary the accusations being made by the gentleman who has pushed it Forward demonstrates the incredible bias on the other side and the attack on our court systems and our courts and our judges not because they are not interpreting the law or doing what they are required to by the Constitution but because they the he disagrees with their decisions with the gentleman yield yes I will um and thank you for reading the Constitution I particularly appreciate you reading the the section on judges and justices serving during good behavior and so let me ask if I can would you consider it to be good behavior to operate without a code of ethics I'm going to reclaim my time if you seek to impeach a Justice you're free to do so so or a judge that is the mechanism I'm just asking if it's if it's good time in Wyoming and there are mechanisms by which all of us can be held to account for our Behavior so uh if you seek to if you believe that someone a judge or a justice has violated their oath of office there is a mechanism by which you can address that and that is called an impeachment proceeding I believe that there was a gentleman from Louisiana who was a federal district court judge that was in fact impeached many years ago for uh bribery and so that is the mechanism by which to do that again uh the amendment is not only unnecessary it just reflects the fact that the Democrats are mad that courts rule against their pet projects and and and what they think the law should be with that I yield back the general lady yield to me gentlelady yields to the gentleman from North Carolina I thank the general lady for yielding it it I think it makes one other point not only that they're mad but that just like another famous Democrat in in the in you know many years ago when they are mad about decisions that they do not like politically Democrats have indicated have demonstrated time and again that they're prepared to fundamentally alter the institution they will strip down the United States Supreme Court as it has been composed they want to delegitimize justices on the court who followed all of the rules by allying with the with people in far left media and continuing salacious attacks on things that have been entirely compliant with all applicable rules for the state if they can't control the if they can't have the political result from the court that they desire they will destroy the court that's the way it works absolute power is the objective and anything that stands in the way must give way no matter how fundamental the attack needs to be so you hear all sorts of things like a ridiculous argument that we need more justices on the Supreme Court so there'll be one to complete conform to each Circuit Court of Appeals how absurd no the answer is they're angry as you say they're mad at the fact that they don't have they haven't been able to secure appointment of the judges and Confirmation the judges justices they want to the Supreme Court in a few years consequently they must destroy it I go back to the general lady from Wyoming thank you and I yield back my time General lady yields back gentleman from New York is recognized I thank the chairman uh Mr chairman it is interesting to hear that the Democrats want to destroy the court because it doesn't agree with us when the the Federalist Society working with Republican leadership has worked for 40 years to pack the courts all the federal courts with right-wing judges um so it's interesting to hear that from from from them uh as to impeachment of Judges I think probably Justice Thomas should probably be impeached I don't know about anybody else I mean obviously he's not going to be impeached by this house but uh given what we've seen about uh his financial transactions he probably should be impeached just as judge porschis was impeached [Music] in 1989. um now yes the Supreme Court number has varied from time to time it has historically been the same as the number of circuits it ought to be 13 now the nobody 13 also because the court has been packed the court has been very deliberately packed we saw this with Mitch McConnell uh stopping Merrick garland from even getting a hearing 11 months before a presidential election because the new president ought to be able to have uh his selection and then ramming Amy Connie Barrett through after the election before Joe Biden took office to deprive him this was rank hypocrisy and packing the court so this has to be on uh this has to be undone and we should not hear lectures about packing the court and with that I'll yield to the gentleman from California I think the German for yielding and I never got an answer to my question from my colleague on the other side of the aisle about whether she considers accepting luxury travel to be consistent with good behavior particularly when you're accepting luxury travel with someone who has a deep interest in the business of the court I never got a chance to ask my colleague across the aisle whether she considers to be acting with in good behavior if you're accepting luxury accommodations or if you're selling property to lawyers who have business before the court without disclosing it what about selling property uh if that property isn't worth what it's being purchased for I don't know if that's the case but I think it should be I'd be happy to yield is it good behavior for the majority leader of the Senate to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and threaten two sitting justices uh well they're the there are remedies which are yes or no you you pose a number yes no questions yes or no proclaiming my time um in the Senate and in the house we have a code of ethics but apparently the Republicans don't believe there should be a code of ethics for the Supreme Court and why because the Supreme Court is doing the bidding of the Republicans it used to be a conservative court but it's not a conservative court anymore a conservative Court would have some respect for precedent this court has no respect for precedent it is a partisan reactionary court but it's doing your partisan reactionary work so you don't care who they're selling their property to you don't care if they have business before the court you don't care who they're staying with who's yacht they're on you don't care about any of that you don't want a code of ethics for justices who are doing your political uh Dirty Work Well I do I don't think it should be a choice between either you impeach them or they can sit on the court and be as corrupt as they want you know it's a binary choice you accept whatever corruption as long as you get the Court decisions you want or impeachment no they don't have a code of ethics like any other Federal Officer there should be some code of ethics it shouldn't be too much to ask I mean do you really think it's right for for justices to be doing luxury travel with people with interest before the court and not reporting it do you really think that's good behavior well the gentleman yield I'll yield for an answer that question do you think that's good behavior no and I think that that's a question perhaps that ought to be asked of Justice Sotomayor and Justice former Justice Breyer because the uh the evidence against them is in in terms of taking money and and travel and things like that from uh people who had or entities that had cases before this I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that Clarence Thomas was engaged in bad behavior uh and and and so there ought to be some repercussion don't you think shouldn't there be some remedy short of impeachment for judges who engage in bad conduct for judges who engage in conduct which calls legitimate question uh into legitimate question their decisions I certainly do I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman the gentleman from New York Hills back the gentleman from California is recognized Mr chairman I know that the hour is late and I'm not going to take an unlimited amount of time but I would like to opine on one thing as the the chairman of the Court subcommittee I would caution that you know there has become a pattern of of discussion about the court and I'm seeing it on both sides that each of them has an example of the high court maybe uh not meeting current standards that they want to set they also have the uh the tendency to to say well they don't like this decision therefore the court is packed one way or the other we have the authority absolute authority to oversee the court to work with the court what we don't have is we don't have the opportunity or the right to interfere with the court and I would just say that you know what I keep hearing more and more and Mr Schiff and I came in to uh to Congress together 20 plus years ago respect for the court then seemed to be something where when we didn't like a case we'd say they decided it badly we wouldn't say that it was personally because of some uh wrongdoing on behalf of the individual I would strongly suggest to all of us that just as we should not and hopefully do not uh comment on somebody's reason for making a decision that we disagree with but rather talk about what we disagree on the gentleman yield yes Mr the ranking member thank you I want to point out two things number one we're getting a little far afield because we're debating an amendment to uh uh to to uh to to apply a code of ethics to the Supreme Court a code of ethics like the code of ethics that applies to all other federal courts second point I want to make is really uh I I think in in some answer to miss Hagerman I introduced the bill as was pointed out a few years ago uh to uh increase the number of Supreme Court Justices by four Hank Johnson introduced the bill uh uh for term limits on on Supreme Court Justices and you can do that in spite of the fact that the Congress the Constitution says they should hold office during good behavior doesn't say which judicial office so you could take a Supreme Court judge and say your circuit court judge and if you combine the two bills you'd end up with a system where every president would get two appointments during his term and it wouldn't be the Russian Roulette of who dies when and I'll yield back okay uh reclaiming my time uh you know I agree with the gentleman that these are all things that we should consider while recognizing the separation of powers uh what I will say about uh in the last Congress uh we broke from tradition in the expansion of the Court we were unable to get to the historic bipartisan support for a phased in uh expansion of the Court currently have legislation that will add nearly 80 new members to the court over a multi-congressional period so that no one Senate and no possibly no one president would necessarily expand the court just a moment these are the kinds of things that are our solemn obligation and we we should do it and I look forward to working with the ranking member as I did when you and I had the subcommittee together some years ago because we need to get back to that I took this time even though it wasn't directly germane to the some of the comments that Mr Schiff had been making or anyone else because I believe we've got to get back to a level of decorum and one of the things is if we don't like decisions of the court and all of us do amicus briefs when we when we feel strongly let us not suggest that the court is corrupt unless we have real evidence let's rather say that the practices of the Court which up until now they've been allowed to determine those should be reined in and I look forward to walking across the street at any time with any members on the other side of the aisle to have that discussion with the court about our belief that they should they should do as an independent Branch they should do the right thing lest we have to and with that I'd yield to my colleague I think the gentleman and uh I would just observed things have changed a lot since you and I came to Congress because you are now the most reasonable sounding Republican on that side of the aisle and I hope that's not too damning of your reputation um I will say this um I would have never supported expanding the court but for what took place when Mitch McConnell withheld an appointment from one president and rushed an appointment for another um that's what changed since you and I got here when you and I got here that kind of stratagem which elevated party and trying to obtain yeah this would have never taken place but it does now and it has brought to the gentleman thank you to the court I'm going to have to yield back my time thank the gentleman yield back has expired the gentleman yields back who seeks recognition I will the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized I think the chairman and I thought just a moment ago what an extraordinary Arbiter of what's reasonable um but you know it I learned in grade school though that the court packing plan was what FDR did when he proposed to expand the size of the Court knowing that he dominated Congress his party dominated Congress and so since he didn't like the results of the lochner era justices uh he was he threatened to grow the court so he could get rid of them without having their opinions evolve but just replace add enough justices to outvote them I didn't make up the term the court packing plan that's what I learned about in grade school right with the German one not until I make this point one of the things that that is so I I made the point one point to follow up the point that I made earlier about it's not just a question about you're mad at the results of a court that construes the law in accordance with what's written but it is something beyond that that is it's a it's a far more radical thing you are because you're ready to destroy the court fundamentally change the court and it actually goes even beyond that you will change the definition of words so when Mitch McConnell I don't know all the rules of the senate about it but because they he he used his position as the leader of the Senate and the majority to delay a vote in one case schedule a vote in another so you didn't so there was a political outcome in terms of justices being confirmed by ordinary long-standing existing processes you didn't like the outcome of because of the way a vote was scheduled in the Senate then you've consistently as long as I've sat on this committee and long I've been watching and listening now before that you've said you've applied the term packing so the ranking member did it multiple times I think maybe uh the gentleman from California also but you say over and over that Mitch McConnell packed the cord well not unless you change the definition of what court packing is and I guess you can you can change the court uh you can come up you know you can uh delegitimize the court you can slander and slime justices over issues that are in compliance with the rules that they've and and certainly judged by the same standard other justices have done the same things but you can call them criminals you can talk about them being corrupt you can imply that they ought to be impeached even though enough courage to bring the the uh the Articles apparently but that's not far enough for you you'll change definition of words and so I mean you know you do you will you with John you yeah I'd be glad to well you can explain that I think your your recollection and I'm not saying it's a personal recollection but your recollection of what Roosevelt tried to do to expand the court is correct and they did call it Court packing he was unsuccessful Mitch McConnell tried a different kind of Court packing and he was successful I want to ask you this question I'll take my time back and ask it because again you said he packed the court but but do you deny that throughout all American history until you uh that that Court packing meant something other than uh the way you run the Senate to either uh confirm or not confirm justices and by their processes under their rules that didn't that's not packing is it what what was what was our yield for that for then answer that question it is absolutely packing when you in an unprecedented manner withhold an appointment of one Justice making the argument it was too close to the election nine months before the election and then mere weeks before the the election you jam an appointment down so that you have a democratic appointment thwarted a republican appointment uh jammed in complete contradiction to the earlier argument that is packing the court and the result of those two justices means an entire generation of Americans will live under a reactionary court but for the fact that he did it the gentleman from North Carolina yield to me no I'm going to respond to that um and you can use you know you can call you can use any word that you want to and change the definition but that was about how votes a procedural rules were applied in the Senate You can disagree with them but that's how the majority I mean I I watched you guys used under Nancy Pelosi you used uh same day Authority forever you you dispense with the requirement of Quorum you let people stay home for in the entire Congress and yet record votes I don't think any of that made sense but the way you resolve that is not go fundamentally change the institution of the Congress is defeat you in an election and take over and run it the way it should be run that's not packing it's not the same thing it's fundamentally upending an institution I yield back gentlemen yields back who seeks recognition to the lady the German I see recognition to strike the last word okay thank you little ladies recognized I assume you're yielding to someone I understand I understand I feel for you I hope that voice clears up take your yielding to Mr yield my time to frankenmember okay I thank the gentlelady and I hope your voice heals up too um I'm not we've had a very interesting debate and Excursion into court packing and all of this stuff I just want to remind people that what we're dealing with is an amendment that really doesn't say much about court packing well this amendment says is that the uh sponsor brought it up Mr I I'm not blaming anybody okay I just want to remind everybody I just want to remind everybody that what we're talking about so we can finish this and debate quit packing forever but I just want to remind everybody what we're talking about is an amendment that simply says that uh the Supreme Court should be subject to a quarter code of ethics opposed by the judicial conference and on and they are now not subject to any code of ethics unlike every fighter judge so I I think this makes sense that the judicial conference should which is chaired by the chief judge chief justice should make a quote a judici should make a code of conduct for the Supreme Court and I therefore urge adoption of what should be an uncontroversial amendment all our other digressions aside and I thank the general gentlelady for yielding that yields back I I thank you for yielding and uh and I'm sorry we're taxing your voice today um and and I think my colleague from New York uh he's absolutely right this amendment is about a code of ethics for the court but I raised the the size of the court and the packing of the court for an important reason and and that is because the American people need to know the court has been packed they need to understand there's there is more than one way to pack a court you can pack a court as Roosevelt tried to do unsuccessfully or you can pack a court the way McConnell did successfully there are two justices the you know the plain fact is there are two justices on the court who shouldn't be there but for the partisan gamesmanship the institution debilitating gamesmanship of Mitch McConnell that resulted in Merrick Garland not having a seat on the court and later resulted in Amy Coney Barrett having a seat on the court those two appointments wouldn't have happened if Mitch McConnell had allowed Barack Obama had allowed his nominee to even get a hearing um now you can say well but that's different because um this the size of the Court remained the same so he packed it without expanding it okay fine but the effect was exactly the same and the addition of those two justices will mean if unaddressed that millions of Americans have lost their reproductive freedom and that may be just the first right to disappear that's the effect of that packing of the Court so whatever you want to call it you want to call it stacking the court or you want to call it packing in the court the result is that an entire generation of Americans are going to see for the first time in our history their rights disappear their rights constricted not enlarged for the gentleman yield I'd be happy to yield did did Harry Reid pack the lower courts when he uh dispensed with the tradition of how confirmations occurred and used the nuclear option to appoint judges to those courts did he pack them well he he certainly added justices to the lower courts but we're talking about at court changing the rule yeah reclaiming my time we're talking about a court we're talking about nine people the least representative body in the country that has enormous power over the lives of every single American that operates without a code of ethics that can decide to reject Decades of precedent that can decide that today you may have a right over your own body but tomorrow you don't today you may have a right to marry the one you choose but tomorrow you don't it may you may have the right to marry someone of another race and tomorrow you don't and and the effect and the effect the unprecedented effect of with with holding an appointment for one president and then in hypocritical fashion jamming another one down the the third of the American people means that an entire generation of Americans are losing their rights with the gentleman yield I'm happy to yield thank you I agree with everything the gentleman has said but I want to remind everybody that the amendment of the gentleman that we're voting on is to have a code of ethics for the Supreme Court and to do nothing more I yield back uh the gentle um General ladies time has expired the gentleman from Texas is recognized just real briefly uh Mr chairman then I want to yield my remaining remainder of my time to uh Miss Hageman but I heard the ranking members say the number of quote the number of justices has historically been the same as the number of circuits just want to correct that factual error it has not been the same since 1929 when the 10th circuit was created and prior to that time uh it was not the same historically either in 1801 there were six courts circuit courts and six justices but between 1801 and 1869 it went from seven justices in 1807 to 9 to 10 to 7-9 never being equal to the number of circuit courts it was only that case between 1801 and 1807 and then again between 1869 and 1829 so historically that would not be an accurate statement I yield a remainder of my time to miss Hagerman I just have two questions uh for uh Mr Schiff and that is that does our code of conduct uh prohibit us from blatantly lying to the American public such as claiming to have evidence of Russian collusion when no such evidence ever existed number one and number two will the gentleman uh whether he agrees that the code of conduct such as the Hatch Act for federal employees should be enforced to prevent them from blatantly interfering in elections including with active presidential campaigns with the general woman yield yes would you consider a campaign chairman giving internal polling data and Battleground strategy to a universal intelligence while that unit of Russian intelligence is helping your candidates campaign to be conclusion collusion or would you consider that just good old-fashioned dirty Republican politics what what I remember seeing throughout that entire discussion was blatant Lying by to the American public on the evidence the so-called evidence that supported the claims of Russian collusion so you think it's just reclaiming my time a dirty politics only came from one side and that was the allegations of Russian collusion with that I yield my time back to Mr Miranda the gentleman yield uh back to the chairman I think we've probably gone down this road as far as we know but the gentleman yeah absolutely yes thank you uh I I guess I I I take the uh the bidding of the ranking member that we should get returned to the amendment lest we say one thing uh there was a discussion about some sort of uh the need for expanding the court I would reach out to all my members and suggest that you get on the on what has historically been the bipartisan expanding of the judges having said that when Mitch McConnell took advantage of uh the ability to add a judge onto the court my understanding is it was only possible because Decades of tradition had been thrown aside by the other party and as a result he was able to do it with 51 votes we never had a gentleman yield it's not my time to yield but we never had 60 votes so at the end of the day the Supreme Court was put back to full because of a policy that your party made which I personally disagree with I would like to see a return to the historic filibuster and as a result a different process for the court I thank the gentleman for yielding Mr chairman I yield back my time gentleman yields back who seeks recognition on the amendment from the gentleman from California no one seeking recognition the question the gentleman from California is recognized been saying that a lot on this one John from California well in response to the concerns raised by my colleague from California uh just looking through uh some articles here of the delay in the uh consideration of Merit Garland in 2016 was not unprecedented the Senate did it to three other presidential nominees between 1844 and 1866 of Charles Gardner gay a law professor at Indiana University I said there's a tendency to view history through Rose colored glasses from time to time and it suggests we've never been this political in reality we've always had this sort of process several times in the 1800s gay says the Senate certainly appears to have delayed with an eye towards saving the nomination for the next president that is a precedent of history and and you know we ought to pay some attention to it not try to rewrite it uh yield the rest of my time to my other colleague from California Mr Eisen thank you and I'll I'll be brief the gentleman very eloquently said that what I find interesting is the ranking member who said that we should vote on this uh this or a pine on it it's sort of interesting that we're talking about everything else and what we're talking about for the most part doesn't belong to the House of Representatives it belongs to the Senate however the amendment before us does belong to us and I would respectfully suggest that we move the previous question yield back all right it yield further to the chairman again I am nervous and I thought what the gentleman from North Carolina point out was right on target this idea the left gets to redefine terms is just just it's hard to have a real debate when you can just change what things mean the Senate confirming or not confirming or not taking up a nominee that the president has submitted that's not packing the court that's just following the rules packing the court is when you change the rules and say we're now going to add new justices to the court that that's that's what packing the court has historically always meant so I I'm I think this is part though would this committee has seen this over the last in the last Congress um and now it continues into this Congress where the left the Democrats our colleagues continue to attack the court they have threatened the court so much so that it was the majority leader on the steps of the Supreme Court saying what he said about Justice gorgeous Gorsuch and Kavanaugh um and of course we know what happened when the Democrats supported the intimidation that took place of the Court when they leaked opinion the Dobbs leaked opinion draft opinion was was leaked out so I hope we defeat this amendment with that yield back to the gentleman from California he can yield the gentleman from California yield um California yields to the ranking number thank you without getting into this debate about who packed the court and when and so forth and so on I want to remind everybody that this is interesting but it is not the amendment before us you remember before as it says that the judicial Conference of the United States chaired by the chief justices shall propose a code of conduct for the Supreme Court they are the only Court in the United States that doesn't have a code of conduct they control the judicial conference and all this amendment says is they should vote themselves a code of conduct so I hope everybody can agree on that the gentleman's point is well taken it's just that I think history is so important that we shouldn't tend to rewrite it to suit our needs but we should we should support this amendment well I think that I think the amendment on its face has some separation of power concerns because it basically says something that Congress is going to pass can actually become law until some other body takes some action namely the judicial conference that's probably a a concern a fundamental concern about separation of powers and the power we have is a separate and equal branch of government so putting aside the the packing the court argument that the sponsor of the amendment brought up that we've had now for a while and that the ranking member says we should move on from there is just a problem with the amendment what the lane the plain language of the amendment says I do think it's probably got a separation of power concern there when it says something Congress passed can't take effect until some other judicial body the judicial conference takes some action that's probably a real concern and I think problematic for this and another reason why we should oppose the amendment with that I yield back to the gentleman from California gentleman yields back who seeks recognition on the amendment Mr chairman the gentleman from Maryland is recognized I yield to uh gentleman from California I think the general you know I just pose a question to the uh to the chairman um I appreciate your raising separation of powers concerns I don't think they're implicated here but but I'm curious Mr chairman do you support a code of ethics for the Supreme Court I think the court has always maintained its ethical centers run through the high the the Chief Justice I think that's what should continue to happen and so uh is this because you have more confidence in nine people with the power that they have they don't need a code of ethics but members of Congress do um because they're operating on a higher moral plane or something I understand why do we have a code of ethics um but the court doesn't need one can you explain that the court wants to impose a code of ethics on themselves like Congress has done to us that's fine but I leave that in the hands of the highest court in the land I think that's consistent with the Constitution as Miss Hageman referenced earlier and that resides with the Chief Justice uh of our of our uh in just one moment that's the deal but but you know there are a few bodies with with the kind of the almost absolute power of the court within its domain um and really Mr chairman you think with all the power the Supreme Court has we should leave it completely up to them whether they want to feel that they have to abide by any code of ethics I'm just going to leave it up to them and if they want to if they want to become secretly beholden to very wealthy people with interest before the court if they want to do that well then we're we're just content with that we're content to leave it to them and just just hope for the best is that is that where you're coming from Mr chairman I gave you my answer I'm happy to you I just want to point out that uh contrary to the chairman we impose the code of ethics on ourselves we impose the code of ethics on all federal judges other than the Supreme Court judges and we can by the same power impose the code of ethics on the Supreme Court though this amendment doesn't have us do it it delegates that authority to the judicial conference I yield back and I I thank the genre for yielding um I mean clearly uh I struck a nerve here by pointing out the foreign the way in which the Senate Republican leader has has packed the court and I understand why that strikes a nerve but let me tell you something it may it may be offensive to Republicans on this committee to consider that Court packing but what is debilitating to the rest of the country is they've lost their reproductive freedom because of that packing because without it millions of Americans would have control over their bodies that don't have it now so you can say well we don't like the connotation that this was packing the court because there's only one way to pack the court and that is by by expanding it that's that's your view but no I think for millions of people they just lost their rights they think there's there's clearly more than one way to pack the court and and you did it and you did it and the only question I think for the rest of us is whether we're prepared to do anything about it because the alternative is that for the next 30 Years we're going to have a reactionary court with a reactionary agenda disregarding Decades of precedent that's the reality that millions of Americans are going to face if we do nothing about it and and if we can't even take the baby step here today of imposing a code of ethics or or at least not enlarging the Court's power until there is a Code of Ethics so we can't even take that step and and Mr Nadler is exactly right um this this step is even one step shy of imposing code of ethics just saying let's not expand the Court's power until they have some ethical code and that's and that's even too much but I guess when when they're doing your political work then no ethical code is necessary I mean we've seen that time and time again with the last Administration that uh as long as the last Administration was furthering a reactionary agenda no ethical code was necessary for the former president and no ethical code is necessary for the current court with that I yield back gentlemen yields back the general that's right I yield back gentlemen gentlemen yield back uh the gentlelady from Indiana is recognized I would just try the last World I actually uh do not take you know and agree the notion it was a gentleman from California that Supreme Court can take rise because Supreme Court cannot give us any rights All rights are provided by our Constitution and the people and if the people believe that some rights needs to be in the Constitution we have a process for Constitutional Amendments we have this legislative branch that can legislate but courts shouldn't be given or taken rights it's interpret the Constitution and if it is interpreted incorrectly you know the courts can reinterpret that but if we believe that the rights should be given they should be explicitly state in the Constitution and we have a process to do Constitutional Amendments if gentleman doesn't like it she should work on this process if American people believe and they have given more rights and protection they should be constitutional like we have a second amendment rights which actually under attack but I also believe you know we do not have this high moral ground to decide what is ethical or not there are some transparent currency things that Court should recuse themselves it's already exists there is financial disclosure we can do it but each branch should decide what part of an Ethics needs to be there and our branch is infringing on other branches rights and separation of power we decide what kind of code of ethics they need to have you know we follow our court of Ethics they need to decide but there are some requirements could be but we have no right to tell other Branch what kind of codes they should have and there is infringement on the separation of power which is extremely important so I completely disagree with this notion and debate here and we have a processes if you disagree what courts does we can override it because American people have that ability and this actually was done on purpose to make sure that we do not misinterpret and change our constitution because if we become a country with each government the Constitution is change you know we create instability and we'll start reminding third world country where each government comes instead interpreted the laws in a different way so I think we have a very important institution I think there is a lot of politics about packing not packing but it is very dangerous to go in the and set the precedent that we are going to start changing the number of justices we're going to start changing the rules because we don't like elections have consequences an election have results but ultimately when you have justices which actually original is they interpret Constitution how it's written and a lot of times even my conservative friends don't agree with that but I think we do have a lot of good justices there that truly believe in the limited government and the rule of law and believe their functions is you know to interpret Constitution and sometimes it doesn't land what Republicans like so I would not say that the court is political I actually think we have a lot of justices that me as a common sense person and not an attorney but I when I read in the opinion I actually agree with a lot of that so I think it's really the right thing to do you know for us to respect the other branches whether we agree or not and deal with the work we should do as our branch and I truly believe we also don't do enough work to oversee executive branch past budget pass legislation and have a kind of Builder regardless who's in charge Republican and Democrat because I think our Branch lost their relevance and has a very low approval rating because we're not doing our job and the power of a purse is one of the most significant power that given to this branch and we cannot even pass budgets and we cannot even you know call the other ones Branch accountable I think maybe we should concentrate another job instead of you know criticizing some other branch and try to use a political message in which you're unhealthy and puts a lot of necessary pressure on justices the end and really put the lives at risk because we politicizing Supreme Court and this is really something that differentiate the Republic from you know pure democracy which leads a lot of to dictatorship and we have to keep this Republic strong it's very important because this is the right the last stronghold that we have around the world and maybe we can have more productive debates on real issues not really doing politics and I yield back the gentle lady yields back Is there further discussion on the amendment seeing none the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California gentleman from New Jersey is recognized this will be um it's late and this will be real quick and it's supposed to be a little humorous I I don't know if it will be but um my first thought is this is definitely not germane my second thought is we are not packing the court and that's never what packing meant but the humorous part of it to me is this is as a lot of my dental friends would say when you get a lot of lawyers in one room at one time this is what happens the gentleman he was back Is there further discussion seeing none the questions on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California the clerk will call the rules all right yeah those in favor say hi aye those opposed say no no the nose appear to have it chairman another call is requested the uh secretary will the clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Gates Mr Johnson of Louisiana Mr Biggs Mr Biggs votes no Mr McClintock no Mr McClintock votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Mr Bishop votes no Miss spartz Miss Bartz votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr bentz Mr bentz votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr goodin Mr Gooden votes no Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kiley Miss Hagerman Miss Hagerman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Frye Mr Fry votes no Mr Nadler Mr Nadler votes aye Ms Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes I Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr sicilini Mr swallow Mr Lou Miss jire Paul Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Miss mcbath hi miss mcbathwood's I miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss bush Mr ivy aye Mr Ivy will die Mr Johnson Louisiana you are not recorded Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes no Mr Nels votes no are any other members not recorded or wish to vote sitting on the clerk will report Mr chairman there are five eyes and 15 knows the amendment is not agreed to Is there further discussion on the uh Mr chairman Mr chair recognizes the ranking I have an amendment at the desk clerk report the amendment gentleman for Arizona reserves a point of order Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to hr2aa offered by Mr Nadler of New York page one line nine insert after extent necessary the following quote and accept as otherwise provided in this section unquote page two line four strike the amendment will be considered as read the gentleman from New York is recognized speak on his Amendment thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman my Amendment would exempt rules made by the Food and Drug Administration pertaining to Consumer safety from the heightened judicial review requirements of this legislation as we have noted this bill would eliminate judicial deference empowering activist courts to substitute their policy preferences for the specialized expertise of federal agencies ultimately it would bring the agency rulemaking process to a halt incentivizing judges to rewrite current regulations and introducing uncertainty into the effort to make new ones in the more specific context of the FDA it would hinder the agency's efforts to protect American consumers every year one in every six people roughly 48 million people suffer from foodborne illness of these more than a hundred thousand Americans are hospitalized and three thousand people die my Amendment would preserve the ability of the FDA to react quickly to sudden crises in food or drug safety saving lives and money in the process it would preserve the ability of the agency to Define dangerous levels of toxins and to protect our drinking water and it recognizes the importance of the role that the FDA serves and the expertise they provide on a daily basis to protect the health and well-being of our constituents I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my Time gentleman yields back as the gentleman says a gentleman from Arizona withdraw his uh withdrawals his point of order I oppose this amendment for supper is not deregulatory Congress and agencies remain free to regulate matters affecting public health and safety second Super does not change does not change the standard of review for questions of fact courts will not be second-guessing agencies factual findings about public health and safety issues third all questions of law should be reviewed under the same standard de novo review that is what Courts are there for and they are good at it they there is no reason to subject the legal decisions of certain ages agencies to a less exacting standard of review exempting exempting some agency from sopril would put their legal judgments ahead of the courts and goes against the Constitutional separation of powers I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back who seeks recognition question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York Mr Nadler all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed no no pin the chair the nose have it roll call being requested the clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Gates Mr Johnson of Louisiana Mr Biggs Mr Biggs votes no Mr McClintock Mr McClintock votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Mr Bishop votes no Miss spartz Miss Bart's votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr Benz Mr Benz votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr goodin Mr Gooden votes no Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nels Mr Nels votes no Mr Moore Mr Kiley Miss Hagerman Miss Hagerman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Frye Mr Frye vote so Mr Nadler aye Mr nalderabad aye Ms Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia vote aye Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr sistolini Mr swallow Mr Lou Miss jayapal Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Miss mcbath aye miss mcbathfield I miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss bush Mr Ivy aye Mr Ivy votes I Mr Johnson Louisiana you are not recorded Mr Johnson Louisiana votes no Mr Moore you're not recorded Mr Moore votes no all members voted clerk will tally and Report Mr chairman there are five eyes and 15 knows uh the amendment is not agreed upon the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute this will be followed immediately by a vote on uh on reporting the bill all those in favor say aye all those opposed no no opinion the chairs the eyes have it um and the amendment nature of substitute is adopted a reporting Quorum being present the question is now unfavorably reporting the bill as amended all those in favor say aye those opposed no no an opinion of the chair the eyes habit roll call please roll call being requested the clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan yes Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Gates Mr Johnson of Louisiana Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes yes Mr Biggs Mr Biggs votes yes Mr McClintock Mr McClintock votes I Mr Tiffany Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Mr Bishop votes yes Miss spartz Miss Sparks votes yes Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes I Mr bentz Mr Ben spons yes Mr Klein Mr Klein votes I'm Mr Gooden Mr goodin votes I Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes yes Mr Nels Mr Nels votes yes Mr Moore Mr Moore votes yes Mr Kiley Miss Hageman Miss Hagerman votes yes Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Frye Mr Fry votes aye Mr Nadler no Mr Nadler votes no Ms Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes no Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes no Mr sicilini Mr swalwell Mr Lou Miss jayapal Mr Correa Miss ganlin Mr naguse Miss mcbath Miss mcbath votes no Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss bush Mr Ivy no Mr Abby votes no has anyone not voted clerk will report Mr chairman there are 15 eyes and five notes the bill is favorably reported uh we'll be favorable reported the house members will have two days to submit views um without objection the bill will be reported as a single amendment in nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make Technical and conforming changes I believe this concludes the business of today's markup and Committee hearing with that we stand adjourned

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 2,260,742

Keywords:

Id: k9dUGa3PUgQ

Length: 60min 15sec (3615 seconds)

Published: Sun May 28 2023