Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, why did it take so long? Why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor? It has been over a month since the leak of the draft opinion, over a month of threats on Supreme Court Justices and their families, over a month of protests at their homes. Why did it take so long? I mean, the protests at their homes are a direct violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Over a month.
It has been over a week, or actually a week, since an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice, on Justice Kavanaugh. Think about that for a second. An assassination attempt on a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice.
And what did the Speaker of the House say last week? No one is in danger. No rush on this legislation. No concern here.
The Senate passed this bill a month ago. Why hasn't the House? Why did it take so long? I think the answer is obvious. Because they have always wanted to intimidate the Court. That has been their goal since the get-go. Their goal was to intimidate the Court. That has been their objective all along.
Think about the history first. We had the Kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left has made up things about Justice Kavanaugh and his family. Then we had the leader of the Senate, the Democrat leader of the Senate on the Supreme Court steps say to two Justices, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
Last April, the Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced legislation to do what? To pack the Court, to add four Associate Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Why four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? Because four would give them a majority on the Court.
Then there was the sustained attack on Justice Thomas and his wife over the last several weeks. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee even had hearings about Justice Thomas.
Then, of course, there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened. And then there were the protests at Supreme Court Justices' homes, again in direct violation of the statute.
And then, finally, there was the hearing the Democrats had in the Judiciary Committee about the abortion issue while the Dobbs decision is pending in front of the Court. You remember that hearing. That was the one where the Democrat witness said men could get pregnant. That is the history here.
And then, of course, last week, we had an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. Intimidation is their goal. It is the same reason the Department of Homeland Security stood up the Disinformation Governance Board. It is the same reason the Department of Justice is targeting parents who have the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their kids. It is all about intimidation. That is how the left operates, and we have seen it play out now against the Supreme Court.
But the good news is, finally, this bill is going to pass and give the Justices of the highest Court in our land the protection they and their families deserve. I say better late than never. We support this legislation. It should have passed a darn long time ago.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, that is why Republicans have condemned violence every single time it happened. We condemned it when it happened on January 6. But guess what? We also condemned it when it happened in the summer of 2020.
It hasn't been a few weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. It has been 6 weeks. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and they wouldn't bring it up. They wouldn't bring it up. In fact, the Speaker of the House, as I said before, the Speaker of the House said last week there was no need to bring it up, but now we are going to. Thank goodness for that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say this. Reading from a headline here, this group, Ruth Sent Us, ``. . . hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's children, church.'' Let me read the headline here. ``Group gave details on Barrett's routine, her children's school, and family's spiritual life.''
In plain English, this group was saying where Justice Coney Barrett goes each day, where her kids go to school, and where her family goes to church. They gave those details.
Last week, the Democrats said no one is in danger. After an assassination attempt on Justice Barrett's colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, they said not to worry. Everything is fine. We don't need to pass this legislation after the Senate had done it unanimously. That is the position of the Democrats in this body.
That is why we are saying: Why did it take so long? Six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened, and the protests started at Justices' homes almost immediately after the leak of that draft, that unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. They have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks.
Here is the email from this organization, this Ruth Sent Us organization. Here is one of the messages: ``If you are in the D.C. metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett's home moved the needle to this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the board of directors for. She attends church daily,'' as if that is bad to go to church daily. I think that is a good thing. But this is what they are saying, this group, giving the details of where her kids go to school, where they go to church, and her daily routine.
And the Democrats said: Nothing to worry about.
That is our concern. So thank goodness this bill is here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We condemned what took place on January 6. It would have been nice if Democrats would have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or passed this legislation 6 weeks ago or a month ago when the Senate passed it.
Let me just recite a few things here that have been said by our colleagues on the other side.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2018, at a campaign event in Georgia, to kick Republicans. ``No. No. When they go low, we kick them.'' That is what this new Democratic Party is about.
It sure is. It is all about intimidation: intimidating the court, intimidating parents who have the nerve to show up at school board meetings, setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to intimidate free speech rights of all Americans. That is what the new Democratic Party is about.
We have seen it time and time again. In the summer of 2018, we saw one of our colleagues from California, a Democrat Member, say: Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from the Trump Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and push back on them, and you tell them--think about this. This is a Member of Congress saying this to a Cabinet member--you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. A Cabinet member of the administration not welcome in their own darn country? That is what a Member of Congress said on the Democrat side.
We had another Member of Congress on the Democrat side say this: There needs to be ``unrest on the streets,'' calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020.
That is why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out--the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. The Speaker of the House last week said no one is in danger. I just read you what they are posting about Justice Coney Barrett and her family and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. Of course, this is in the context of everything they have done to intimidate the Court and an assassination attempt on another Justice, Justice Kavanaugh.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
I have missed most of the debate on the floor. Mr. Jordan just made reference to an item that bowls me over. You wonder after you have been in Washington for a little while whether anything will surprise you. Yes, Madam Speaker, that tweet by the pro-abortion group, Ruth Sent Us, that identified Justice Barrett's church and identified the school that her children attend and encouraged protestors to ``voice your anger'' by demonstrating there, is a new low.
Not just the identification of Justices' home addresses, which I never thought we would see, not just the crowds materializing there, which I never thought we would see, not just the appearance of an assassin at the home of a Justice, which we have never seen, and yet, the response is: What about January 6?
As the gentleman from Ohio made the point, I have never encountered any Republican who declined to condemn the violence and rioting at the Capitol that day. I have never found one. I have never heard one. And yet, I never hear condemnation of such conduct as I have described from Democrats. I might be missing it. I am not hearing it now. I am hearing this, What about January 6?
I condemn the rioting and the violence at the Capitol on January 6.
I condemn the Democrat leader of the Senate standing in front of the Supreme Court to say to two specific Justices that, You have released the whirlwind. You will suffer the result. I don't remember the exact words. And then what I do remember, the phrase that sticks in my mind: ``You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'' I never hear condemnation for that. I don't know why.
I do think I know why this bill had to be delayed from last week when we were here and could have passed it. That is because you want to protect the leaker. That implies that although this has been pending for a month and a half and the Nation doesn't know who the leaker is, somebody knows who the leaker is; and that is who you want to protect, amazing as that is, unprecedented as that is.
We certainly ought to pass this legislation and protect the Justices of the United States Supreme Court from assassins, assassins responding to the unprecedented advocacy on the left.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the employees of the Supreme Court are already protected. This is about protecting the Justices' families, and we know that is needed based on the headline I read and the email that Mr. Bishop just talked about.
The gentleman said that Democrats condemn violence. No, they don't. No, they don't. They called rioters and looters the entire summer of 2020, they called them ``peaceful protestors.'' And that same summer, then-Senator now-Vice President Harris raised money to bail those rioters and looters and people who went after the police out of jail. So you have got to stick with the facts here, and that is just not accurate what was stated earlier.
For all the reasons we have highlighted, Madam Speaker, we are glad this bill is finally going to pass. We just wish it would have happened when it should have, weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for Supreme Court Justices.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, a talking point? The left is telling people where Justice Barrett's kids go to school. That is not a talking point, that is a fact. That is one of the craziest things I have heard said on this floor.
A talking point? Every single Senator voted for this package. That includes Democrats. Every single one.
A talking point? You have got to be kidding me.
They are reporting where a Supreme Court Justice's kids go to school, where her family goes to church, her daily routine, and the left calls it a talking point?
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source