Senators Cory Booker and Ted Cruz engaged in a fiery exchange during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on threats to federal judges. As Cruz accused Democrats of remaining silent during threats against conservative justices, Booker pushed back, calling the remarks “dangerous” and a “patent lie.” The tense back-and-forth highlighted rising political divisions over judicial safety, enforcement of protest laws, and the legacy of Trump-era rhetoric. The hearing, titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch," underscored growing concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and partisan responses to violence and intimidation.
#BookerVsCruz #JudicialThreats #SenateClash #CoryBooker #TedCruz #FederalJudges #SCOTUS #PoliticalDivision #JudiciaryHearing #TrumpEra #DemocratsVsRepublicans #SenateFireworks #USPolitics #PartisanRift #LegalNews #SupremeCourt #DobbsDecision #JudgeSafety #SubcommitteeHearing #CapitolHill #LawAndOrder #DOJ #Protests #FreeSpeechDebate #SenateShowdown #BreakingNews #AmericanPolitics #JusticeSystem #Schumer #Kavanaugh #BookerStrikesBack #CruzVsBooker
Also Read
Zuckerberg’s testimony before social-media unsavvy gerontocrats & shrewd politicians :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-congress-social-media-unsavvy-gerontocrats-ted-cruz-2675671.html?ref=DMDesc
Ted Cruz will vote for former rival Donald Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/ted-cruz-will-vote-for-former-rival-donald-trump-2217831.html?ref=DMDesc
GOP Convention turns ugly as Ted Cruz faces insults for not endorsing Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/republican-convention-ted-cruz-faces-insult-not-endorses-trump-2158995.html?ref=DMDesc
~HT.410~ED.103~GR.125~
#BookerVsCruz #JudicialThreats #SenateClash #CoryBooker #TedCruz #FederalJudges #SCOTUS #PoliticalDivision #JudiciaryHearing #TrumpEra #DemocratsVsRepublicans #SenateFireworks #USPolitics #PartisanRift #LegalNews #SupremeCourt #DobbsDecision #JudgeSafety #SubcommitteeHearing #CapitolHill #LawAndOrder #DOJ #Protests #FreeSpeechDebate #SenateShowdown #BreakingNews #AmericanPolitics #JusticeSystem #Schumer #Kavanaugh #BookerStrikesBack #CruzVsBooker
Also Read
Zuckerberg’s testimony before social-media unsavvy gerontocrats & shrewd politicians :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-congress-social-media-unsavvy-gerontocrats-ted-cruz-2675671.html?ref=DMDesc
Ted Cruz will vote for former rival Donald Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/ted-cruz-will-vote-for-former-rival-donald-trump-2217831.html?ref=DMDesc
GOP Convention turns ugly as Ted Cruz faces insults for not endorsing Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/republican-convention-ted-cruz-faces-insult-not-endorses-trump-2158995.html?ref=DMDesc
~HT.410~ED.103~GR.125~
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I did not interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish.
00:06I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric,
00:11which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country.
00:15Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me for a moment?
00:19We indulge you every moment.
00:21I appreciate that act of generosity.
00:24It's just something you said that I think is actually dangerous
00:27and should be addressed, and you're welcome.
00:30But when Judge Anderle was killed in New Jersey,
00:34the Republican colleagues in the Senate,
00:36their outpouring of support, their outpouring of concern,
00:40their willing to work together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary.
00:43It shows the truth of this institution.
00:46Despite some of the fiery rhetoric that you were showing,
00:49we're really working bipartisanship.
00:53Cornyn and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about,
00:57got together and actually passed a bill
00:59to better protect our Supreme Court justices,
01:02many of whom are friends of ours.
01:05You know, Gorsuch and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
01:08I knew his wife before he did.
01:10We studied together at Oxford.
01:12This implication that there was silence
01:14when there were threats on their people's houses
01:15is absolutely absurd.
01:18I remember the rhetoric and the comments,
01:21the concern from Coons.
01:22I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman,
01:25on more than once condemning those attacks
01:28on Republican-appointed jurists.
01:32To say things like that feeds just the partisanship
01:35in this institution and feeds the fiery rhetoric.
01:39And it's just plain not true.
01:41It's just plain not true.
01:42And I think you know that,
01:43but we can pull from the record from my colleagues
01:46in real time, literally days afterwards,
01:49condemning it.
01:50There's a lot of substantive things to say here,
01:52but to think that the lack of humanity
01:55when people's homes are being threatened
01:57was not in existence,
01:58I think that's unfair
01:59and really concerns me that you would say that
02:01in the way that you did.
02:03Well, I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
02:05I will note, as John Adams observed,
02:09that facts are stubborn things.
02:10And it is existing federal law,
02:1418 U.S.C., section 1507,
02:16that makes it a crime
02:17to protest at a judge's home.
02:20And the law provides,
02:21whoever with the intent of interfering
02:23with obstructing or impeding
02:24the administration of justice
02:26or with the intent of influencing
02:27any judge, juror, witness, or court officer
02:30in the discharge of his duty,
02:31pickets or parades,
02:33in or near a building,
02:34housing a court of the United States,
02:36in or near a building or residence,
02:37occupied or used by such judge,
02:40juror, witness, or court officer,
02:42or with such intent
02:43uses any sound truck or similar device
02:45or resorts to any other demonstration
02:47in or near any such building or residence,
02:50shall be fined under this title
02:53or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
02:58That is federal criminal law.
03:00Night after night after night,
03:03angry mobs were outside
03:04the Supreme Court justices' homes
03:06and in the entire course of it,
03:09the Biden Justice Department
03:10prosecuted nobody.
03:13We had the Attorney General
03:14sitting at that table
03:15and multiple Republican Senators
03:18asked him,
03:19why are you not enforcing the law?
03:21What they are doing is a crime.
03:24And my friend from New Jersey said,
03:26it is a lie to say
03:27we the Democrats
03:28condone this.
03:32I would challenge my friend,
03:33find a single Democrat Senator
03:36on this committee
03:36holding the Attorney General
03:39to account for not enforcing this law.
03:42I was here at those hearings
03:43and I do not recall
03:44a single Democrat Senator
03:47saying to the Attorney General,
03:48you should arrest these people
03:52who are violating the law,
03:54you should protect the judges.
03:55I agree that there was general language
03:58against violence,
03:59but not a single Democrat Senator
04:02that I ever saw in this committee
04:05was willing to hold
04:06Attorney General Merrick Garland
04:08to account for flagrantly disregarding
04:11the federal criminal law
04:12because the Biden administration
04:14agreed with the protesters
04:16and I think wanted
04:17those justices harassed
04:18at their homes.
04:19I really appreciate
04:20that you have now shifted
04:21the accusation you made earlier.
04:23Your accusation was
04:25that we were silent
04:25in the face of protests
04:27at Supreme Court Justices' homes.
04:31Again,
04:32we joined together
04:33in a bipartisan way
04:34not only to condemn that,
04:36but to pass legislation
04:38to extend
04:39round-the-clock security protection
04:42literally days.
04:43It was introduced May 5th,
04:45passed the Senate
04:46in a bipartisan fashion
04:48on May 9th.
04:48So if you're saying
04:49that we didn't criticize
04:50Merrick Garland...
04:50Did the Biden DOJ
04:51arrest a single person
04:52under this law?
04:53Sir, you are now changing
04:54the accusation that she made.
04:54No, that is what I said.
04:55That is what I said.
04:56Again, I'll pull the record.
04:58Did the Biden DOJ
04:59arrest even one?
05:00Again.
05:01The answer is no.
05:01My point to you is
05:03the accusation
05:04that the Democrats
05:06on this committee
05:07do not care about
05:08the safety
05:09of federal judges...
05:11Should the Biden DOJ...
05:11I did not interrupt you, sir.
05:12I would appreciate
05:13if you let me finish.
05:17I am sick and tired
05:19of hearing
05:20the kind of
05:21heated partisan rhetoric,
05:22which is one of the reasons
05:24why we have such divisions
05:25in this country.
05:26The attacks we see
05:27from the President
05:28of the United States
05:29of America
05:30trolling and dragging
05:32judges through
05:34is what we should be
05:35talking about
05:36that puts people
05:37in danger.
05:38I'm simply taking issue
05:39with the claim
05:40that you made
05:41at the top
05:42that people
05:43on the Democratic
05:44side of the aisle
05:45do not care
05:46about the safety
05:47and the security
05:48of judges
05:49and said nothing.
05:50You said we were silent
05:52after people's houses
05:53were protested.
05:54That is a patent lie, sir.
05:56We were not silent.
05:58We took action.
06:00We joined in a bipartisan way
06:02to protect those judges
06:03as was done
06:04in a bipartisan way
06:06to protect
06:06a New Jersey judge
06:08after their horrific attack
06:10at their home.
06:11So I see you now
06:12trying to shift the debate
06:14to whether we talk
06:15to an attorney general.
06:16I'm simply taking issue
06:18with this accusation
06:19that somehow
06:20we Democrats
06:21are so bad
06:22because we don't call out
06:24threats
06:24to our judicial colleagues.
06:27And that is wrong.
06:29You can change the argument
06:30now that you want,
06:31but what you said
06:32was patently not true
06:33and was in fact
06:34a patent lie.
06:35So I do enjoy the fact
06:39that my colleague
06:39from New Jersey
06:40raises his voice
06:41and says it's a patent lie
06:43and says he's doing so
06:44in defense of lowering
06:46the rhetoric.
06:47There is some irony
06:48to doing those two together.
06:51I'll point out
06:52that in the entire course
06:54of those remarks,
06:55Senator Booker
06:56did not dispute
06:57the central point I made,
06:59which is the Biden
07:00Justice Department
07:01arrested zero people,
07:03prosecuted zero people,
07:05for violating
07:06the criminal law
07:07and every Democrat
07:10senator on this committee
07:11was silent about it.
07:12And this was an ongoing
07:13pattern for months.
07:15And I would note also
07:16that the senator
07:17from New Jersey
07:18clutched his pearls
07:19about language
07:20threatening judges
07:22and yet I do not recall
07:23a single Democrat senator
07:25of this committee
07:25saying a word
07:27when Chuck Schumer
07:28went to the steps
07:29of the Supreme Court
07:30and threatened
07:31the safety
07:32of the Supreme Court
07:32justices by name,
07:35Gorsuch and Kavanaugh,
07:37and he said you have
07:37unleashed the whirlwind
07:39and you will pay the price.
07:42And not a single
07:43Democrat senator
07:44had a word to say
07:45about this.
07:45And so their outrage
07:47is selective.
07:49And I will give
07:50my colleague from New Jersey
07:52a chance to just answer
07:54a simple yes-no question.
07:56Should the Biden
07:56Justice Department
07:57have enforced
07:58the criminal law
08:00against protesting
08:01at a justice's home?
08:02Yes or no?
08:04So the rank hypocrisy
08:05of Chuck Schumer
08:06apologizing the next day
08:08and you holding
08:09that standard for him
08:10and not for your president
08:12who you actually
08:13rightfully described
08:14when you were running
08:15against him in a primary.
08:17I would love
08:18to run those tapes
08:19of how you perfectly
08:20talked about
08:21the danger of our president
08:22and his rhetoric.
08:25But now you are
08:26failing, in fact blind
08:29to the very things
08:30you're accusing
08:30Chuck Schumer of.
08:31I don't think Donald Trump
08:32would know an apology
08:33if it hit him in the head.
08:35Never said apologizing.
08:37So again,
08:38you are very, very, sir,
08:40very, very deep
08:42into the waters
08:42of hypocrisy
08:43in your criticisms
08:44of Chuck Schumer.
08:46So let the record reflect
08:48that Spartacus
08:49did not answer the question
08:50and did not tell us
08:52whether the criminal law
08:53should be enforced
08:54because he knows
08:55the answer is yes
08:56and he knows
08:57that the Biden
08:57Department of Justice
08:58was being wildly
08:59political and partisan
09:01in refusing to enforce
09:03the law
09:03because they disagreed
09:04with the Supreme Court
09:05justices' rulings.
09:07I have also,
09:09in addition to
09:09Senator Durbin
09:10who's given his
09:11opening statement,
09:11I have a written
09:12opening statement
09:13from Chairman Grassley.
09:15Without objection,
09:16that written statement
09:16has entered into the record
09:17and I will now briefly
09:19introduce our
09:20distinguished witnesses.
09:21We have three.
09:22Subscribe to OneIndia
09:25and never miss an update.