'Stop pushing SLAVERY ERA IDEA!': Rep Gooden TORCHES Democrats over SCOTUS expansion plan

Ajouté : 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]I really appreciate my Republican colleagues for not pushing the slavery era idea that was last successful during the slavery days that I think we're trying to move past. One of the arguments is well, it's been done several times. But you just said it's been done no time since 1869.

[00:00:19]So 6 years after the Emancipation Proclamation is when Congress stopped playing games with the makeup of the Supreme Court and now Democrats are defending this idea.

[00:00:32]>> The gentleman from Texas for his time.

[00:00:34]>> Mr. Ross, you were speaking earlier I believe with the ranking member about the number of times that the number of Supreme Court justices has changed.

[00:00:44]When was the last time we changed the the makeup of the Supreme Court? When was that?

[00:00:49]>> 1869.

[00:00:50]>> 1869. And I believe it was 1863 that the Emancipation Proclamation came out. So what I'm hearing is that Democrats want to go back to slavery era politics with respect to the Supreme Court makeup. One of the arguments is well, it's been done several times. But you just said it's been done no time since 1869.

[00:01:13]So 6 years after the Emancipation Proclamation is when Congress stopped playing games with the makeup of the Supreme Court and now Democrats are defending this idea. Fortunately, some are are Well, some are not living, but some were not quite as outrageous. In 2019, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, "I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the court. And if anything, it would make the court look partisan." In 2021, Justice Stephen Breyer remarked during a Harvard Law School speech that packing the court would be a structural alteration that would result in eroding trust in the judiciary. More recently in September 2021, Justice Breyer again criticized packing the court. President Joe Biden expressed skepticism about court packing proposals during his Senate tenure in 1983. When speaking about FDR's proposal, he called it a bonehead idea.

[00:02:11]Former President Biden's own presidential commission on the Supreme Court expressed hesitation in 2021. The commissioners noted the court expansion is likely to undermine rather than enhance the Supreme Court's legitimacy legitimacy and its role in the constitutional system. So, I really appreciate my Republican colleagues for not pushing the slavery era idea that was last successful during the slavery days that I think we're trying to move past. And I yield balance of my time to the ranking member, Mr. Jordan.

[00:02:45]>> Thank you.

[00:02:46]Mr. Capozzi, if you don't like what the court's doing and you'd like a change, how do you do it?

[00:02:55]>> Well, you can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decisions.

[00:02:59]That's something the Supreme Court has done from time to time.

[00:03:02]>> In a more broad way, how do you do it?

[00:03:04]>> Well, you could take your case to the public. You can build up a record of opposition. You can advocate for change.

[00:03:11]You know, the conservative legal movement did that after Roe v. Wade, for example.

[00:03:16]>> Yeah, you go make the argument and you win elections, right? You win the White House, you have a majority of the Senate, that's how the court's figured out. Straight from the Constitution. But no, no, they don't want that.

[00:03:27]They don't want that because oh, Republicans in the White House and you got to nominate people and you had Republicans in the Senate who controlled the Senate and they got to confirm them.

[00:03:34]That's how the process Well, we don't like that. So, one point they're saying oh, we're not going to be it's too political, but there's a political process to it as well.

[00:03:42]That's how it works. You got to go win elections. Do you believe leaking the Dobbs decision was designed to undermine and change the court's decision, Mr. Chairman.

[00:03:55]>> It certainly appears to have had to have been done with that intent. It was an It was an attempt to try to get one or two of the justices who ended up in the majority on Dobbs to back away.

[00:04:06]>> Yeah.

[00:04:06]>> It didn't work.

[00:04:07]>> Thank goodness it didn't work.

[00:04:08]>> Thank heavens.

[00:04:09]>> It was a I think it was an effort to intimidate the court. You think so, Mr. Ross Professor Ross, do you think that was the case?

[00:04:15]>> I would agree with that.

[00:04:16]>> Yeah, and it was wrong. It was bad, right?

[00:04:19]We don't want that to happen again.

[00:04:21]It should never happen before. Do you agree, Mr. Capozzi?

[00:04:25]>> I was a clerk when the leak happened, so I'm not going to discuss details of the leak, but I will say that it was a cowardly act, and I hope it never happens again.

[00:04:33]>> Yeah. Do you agree with that, Mr. Buoy?

[00:04:36]>> Um I don't really have a strong opinion about the leak. I was not a clerk on the court at >> A good thing or bad thing?

[00:04:43]>> I think that more publicity for what the court does would be good, but I think that sacrificing one's ethics is not good, no.

[00:04:49]>> Well, well, well, then >> But >> But just yes or no. Is it a good thing to leak a decision before it's final before the court's actually weighed in?

[00:04:56]Is that a good thing or bad thing?

[00:04:58]>> I don't think it's good for anyone to sacrifice their ethical responsibilities.

[00:05:01]>> Okay. By the way, why don't we know who leaked the Dobbs opinion? Mr. Capozzi, you were there. Why don't we know that?

[00:05:08]>> I'm going to respectfully decline to answer that question.

[00:05:10]>> not I'm not asking if you do know it.

[00:05:12]I'm just saying why don't we know it?

[00:05:13]Seems like that's Mr. Chairman, why don't we know that?

[00:05:16]>> I believe there was an investigation done by the >> No, I know there was an investigation done by the >> was inconclusive.

[00:05:21]>> Yeah.

[00:05:23]Amazing they couldn't figure out. Mr. Ross, any any thoughts on that?

[00:05:25]>> I I really don't know.

[00:05:27]>> Okay. All right. Are you back?

[00:05:29]>> Gentlemen, you're back.

[00:05:31]We now go to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Lee.

[00:05:35]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[00:05:36]As a former judge, I understand that the legitimacy of the judiciary does not depend on whether people agree with every decision. It depends on whether judges interpret and apply the law independently without political intimidation, threats to their safety, or pressure to deliver preferred opinions. Today, we are seeing increasing efforts, we're hearing them today, to delegitimize the court through court-packing proposals, spurious personal attacks on justices, and criticisms of judicial philosophies like originalism simply because some disagree with outcomes in particular cases. An independent judiciary cannot function if judges are treated like politicians whenever they issue an unpopular opinion, and baseless, unfounded allegations impugning the ethics of judges and justices, incoherent attacks on principled application of judicial philosophy, and failure to appreciate that a disciplined adherence to the laws and the Constitution as written is actually the hallmark of a good and successful judge.

[00:06:53]And on that note, Mr. Chair, I would like to discuss one thing that concerns me about modern discourse surrounding the judiciary is the growing expectation that judges should reach politically preferred outcomes rather than faithfully apply the law. And critics sometimes today portray originalism as if it is some sort of political project to achieve conservative outcomes. But at its core, isn't originalism actually about judicial restraint, requiring judges to interpret the Constitution as written as opposed to applying their personal preferences?

[00:07:34]>> Yes, um and uh I I was a law clerk to uh to Justice Scalia, and I had several experiences with him where he felt like the Constitution or a given statute required a result that he didn't like as a policy matter. The very first opinion that I helped him write as a as a new justice was an opinion sustaining a Fourth Amendment objection to the admission of certain evidence in a trial. And he sided with the liberal justices on that issue because he felt that's what the the Constitution required. The morning after that opinion came out there was a an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that said, "We wonder whether President Reagan has made a mistake in putting Justice Justice Scalia on the court." And we saw that in several in several different areas. So to me that's the hallmark of a good judge is he or she is willing to follow the the law as written even if it even if it leads to places that the judge disagrees with as a policy matter.

[00:08:36]That's judging in my view.