Senator Whitehouse, Senator Cruz, it's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. I have to admit I'm enjoying listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law after four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen. We just heard the senator from Rhode Island talk about the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up outside Supreme Court justices' homes, including, I might note, female justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family. And Joe Biden's attorney general didn't do a damn thing and refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why? Because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted to intimidate and threaten those judges.
Professor Bray, under our Constitution, who should decide elections: the voters or unelected judges?
The voters are the ones who should vote in the election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have to be applied by the judges.
And under our Constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions: elected representatives elected by the people, or unelected federal judges?
I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little broader than the particular case. So the basic — the laws should be enacted by Congress; that's where the fountain of policy decisions of the elected branches — law is the province of the court, policy is the province of the elected branches.
These are not complicated. Professor Bray, let me ask you this: do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case?
That's a question I agree is not complicated. They do not have that power.
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere in the Constitution?
First chart: in the first 150 years of our Republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued?
My view is that there were not any until 1963.
Zero. Now fast forward: how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century?
It's a small number. I would think it would be a dozen, give or take. It's not larger.
27. Actually, excluding Trump's first term, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last 20 years?
32, from 2001 to 2024, against Biden, Obama, and Bush. 32. And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone?
There have been quite a few.
37. Let that sink in. There have been no more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against President Trump than in the entire 20th century. There have been more nationwide injunctions against President Trump in the last two months than both terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama, and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency lawfare indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery of justice to attack him, and that was an attack on democracy because Democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are angry at the voters for reelecting Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and they engaged in lawfare to stop democracy from operating.
Understand this is the second phase of lawfare. Second chart: this is the second phase of lawfare. Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from reelecting him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical judges to try to shut down policies, and they are forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with a policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore U.S. immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. U.S. law explicitly said there's no judicial review for that, but hey, they found a judge who says, you know what, we the Democrat Party, we are the party of illegal aliens, we are the party of murderers and rapists and gang members, and the Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason the Democrat Party is at 26% approval nationwide: because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law.
Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided. Thank you.
Okay, that was a lot. Let me start with a few things. Number one, we love democracy, and I believe what we should be having is a civil debate about how we can best — if Donald Trump wants to make changes to the government, we should be doing it in a legal way, not how he's doing it. And the only reason there's all these injunctions, Senator Cruz, is because he's violating the Constitution. Why would Trump-appointed judges —
Why don't you file them in red districts? Why are the Democratic attorney generals seeking out left-wing —
I'm losing patience with Senator Cruz's activity in this — Senator Whitehouse, he's entitled to — I'm just going to ask for a point of order, Madam Chair.
Senator Moody, we have debates on this committee. They occur regularly.
Let's let her have her time, and then we'll get back to you, Senator Cruz. If you want to wait, we'll get back to you.
Answer the question or not, our choice.
So excited following Senator Cruz once again, but I will say this —
