Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 4160) to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows: S. 4160
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022''. SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS.
Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. 4160.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4160, the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022.
While the Supreme Court police force is currently authorized to provide protection to the Justices of the Supreme Court, this bill would unequivocally extend their authority to provide protection to family members of Justices if there is reason to believe they are at risk.
It is imperative that the Justices are free from fear of violence or physical intimidation to make decisions based on the Constitution and law as applied to the facts of the cases before them. This is essential to the rule of law. Assailants like the man arrested recently for allegedly plotting against the life of one of our Justices are a threat to our democracy, but with the right security, they can also be stopped before they inflict harm.
I thank Senators Coons and Cornyn for their work on this issue in the Senate, and Representatives Stanton, Correa, and Issa for their work in the House, likewise introducing bills that would extend protection to the families of Justices. I also thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee as well.
I further note that Mr. Stanton's bill would have also extended protection to the families of Court employees. We understand that there was Republican opposition to that aspect of the bill, and in the interest of protecting the Justices' families, we could no longer delay in passing the only version of the bill they would apparently agree to. But I hope we will swiftly move another bill to extend protection to families of employees as well.
I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this straightforward measure to ensure that the families of Supreme Court Justices have the necessary protection from any threats they may face.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, let me tell you why it took us a few weeks rather than just 1 week to pass this legislation. It is because Republicans refused to protect the families of Supreme Court employees who are at risk. Shame on you for not doing that.
And, by the way, there are threats to Justices across the board. I support this legislation. I just note that recently there was an article on CNN titled ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunman, Federal judge tells `60 Minutes,' '' dated February 19, 2021. Intimidation goes on both sides.
Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices already have protection. Let me say that again. Supreme Court Justices already have protection.
This is about families of Supreme Court Justices, which I support them having protection, and Democrats are fighting for families of law clerks and employees of the Supreme Court. They should have protection, too.
Let me tell you the threats to employees of the Supreme Court. Soon after the draft decision leaked, a rightwing activist posted the personal details of a law clerk who he baselessly claimed had leaked Justice Alito's draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. This rightwing activist even posted the clerk's wedding announcement and singled out the clerk's spouse. Republicans don't want to protect that person or their family.
After another Republican strategist claimed a different law clerk had leaked the opinion, an extremist anti-abortion rights group issued a press release targeting that clerk and the Justice the clerk worked for. The author of the press release had served years in prison for conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. Referring to the people in the Justice's office, the group's leader said that he could smell their fear.
Republicans don't want to protect the families of Supreme Court employees. Shame on them.
Recently, a news outlet obtained a DHS intelligence report identifying threats to murder Justices and their clerks. Why don't Republicans want to protect the families of Supreme Court employees?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to respond to that because what he just said is a lie. The fact that he is saying Democrats think there is nothing wrong, there is no danger to Supreme Court Justices, is a lie. Why? Because we are the majority party, and we just put this bill up, and we are about to vote on it. We clearly care about Supreme Court Justices.
But we also care about the families and employees of the Supreme Court, and that is what we are talking about today. Again, I just want to remind you, Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices right now have law enforcement protection details. They are protected by law enforcement. This bill has to do with the families of Supreme Court Justices. I support protecting them. I also support protecting the employees and their families of the Supreme Court.
That is the dispute. The Democrats want to also protect the employees and families who are getting threats from rightwing activists, intimidation from the far right.
Do you want to talk about intimidation? I will tell you what intimidation is. It is Trump supporters assaulting the Capitol on January 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. That is intimidation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I condemn violence whether it is from rightwing groups or leftwing groups or white supremacist groups or any other group. Democrats say this all the time.
I will tell you why Republicans don't hear it. Because they are in their bubble watching just Fox News, who won't even show the January 6 hearings. That is why they don't hear any of this stuff because it is never played to them or their base. Democrats condemn violence all the time.
By the way, last year--I am just going to tell you the headline of this article again: ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunmen . . .'' Did Republicans jump up in outrage? No, no, they didn't.
So let's just be clear here what we are talking about today, once again: Supreme Court Justices get law enforcement protection right now, as we speak.
This is actually a dispute about employees. So I am going to ask Republicans a question, and I bet you they will not answer it: Why do they not want to protect the employees and their families of the Supreme Court?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, S. 4160 is a straightforward bill that will protect the families of the Justices. Democrats also fought to try to protect the families of Supreme Court employees. Republicans objected and won't do that, so this is the best we can get.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source