Title: Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that an Independent Judiciary is Fundamental to American Democracy.
Policy area: Law

Summary:
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that:

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 105 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 105

     Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that an 
      Independent Judiciary is Fundamental to American Democracy.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Jackson 
 Lee, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ted Lieu 
of California, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. 
Deutch, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
  Illinois, Ms. Bass, Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Al 
   Green of Texas, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Maxine Waters of California, 
  Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Vela, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. McCollum, Mr. 
  Yarmuth, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Soto, Mr. Gene Green of 
Texas, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Courtney, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of 
    New Mexico, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Davis of 
    California, Mr. Takano, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Sewell of 
Alabama, and Ms. Norton) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
     Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that an 
      Independent Judiciary is Fundamental to American Democracy.

Whereas Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the Federal 
        judiciary as an independent and co-equal branch of government;
Whereas, in Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that ``The complete 
        independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a 
        limited Constitution'';
Whereas the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle of judicial independence 
        for more than 200 years, beginning with the foundational case of Marbury 
        v. Madison, in which Court ruled that ``It is emphatically the province 
        and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is'';
Whereas the judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional system;
Whereas personal attacks on the character and integrity of a sitting Federal 
        judge by a Federal official is contrary to longstanding tradition, and 
        undermines the principle of judicial independence;
Whereas, in June of 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump impugned the motives of 
        Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over litigation related to Trump 
        University, by declaring that Judge Curiel was a ``total disgrace'' who 
        had ``an absolute conflict'' because of his Mexican heritage;
Whereas, on February 3, 2017, Judge James L. Robart, Federal District Judge for 
        the Western District of Washington, placed a temporary stay on the 
        Executive order titled ``Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist 
        Entry into the United States'';
Whereas, in response to Judge Robart's Order, President Trump tweeted, ``The 
        opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement 
        away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!'';
Whereas several of President Trump's subsequent tweets both attacked Judge 
        Robart specifically, and the court system more generally, including:

    (1) ``What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland 
Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into 
U.S.?'';

    (2) ``Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and 
dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision.'';

    (3) ``The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others 
that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!'';

    (4) ``Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. 
If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!''; 
and

    (5) ``I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into 
our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very 
difficult!'';

Whereas the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, issued a statement 
        referring to Judge Robart's ruling as ``outrageous'' but reissued the 
        statement ten minutes later without the word outrageous;
Whereas Linda Klein, President of the American Bar Association stated that 
        ``personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution'';
Whereas public figures and scholars from across the ideological spectrum have 
        raised concerns with President Trump's comments;
Whereas Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated, ``I think it is 
        best not to single out judges for criticism'';
Whereas the former Acting Solicitor General under President Obama, Neil Katyal, 
        tweeted, ```So-called judge'? As the former top courtroom lawyer for the 
        federal govt, I've never seen a president attack a sitting judge this 
        way.'';
Whereas Senator Ben Sasse, (R-NE) noted, ``We don't have any so-called judges, 
        we have real judges'';
Whereas Joe Scarborough argued, ``When a president uses social media to question 
        the legitimacy of a federal judge following an inconvenient (and 
        temporary) outcome, that is simply unacceptable.'';
Whereas Yale University professor, Bruce Ackerman, stated, ``The president is 
        assaulting the foundations of the separation of powers in condemning the 
        judge for his decision in a tweet.''; and
Whereas University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner argued, ``Mr. Trump's attack 
        on Judge Robart's integrity could encourage executive branch officials 
        to disregard other judicial orders, and will further inflame people's 
        distrust of border agents, whether they do or not'': Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are 
        co-equal, and each deserves the respect of the others;
            (2) an independent judiciary is fundamental to the checks 
        and balances embodied by the separation of powers, is essential 
        to maintaining respect for the rule of law, and is critical to 
        our constitutional democracy;
            (3) attacks against the judiciary, as an institution, 
        threaten to weaken public confidence in the courts as a fair 
        and impartial arbiter of the law; and
            (4) whether or not one agrees with the substance of a 
        particular judicial decision, it is inappropriate for sitting 
        Presidents, or other government officials, to engage in ad 
        hominem attacks against a judge, or otherwise place political 
        pressure designed to undermine the independence of that judge, 
        or to erode trust in the entire court system.
                                 <all>