At a House Judiciary Committee hearing before the Congressional recess, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) spoke about his disagreements with Trump.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Journal article entitled, Why Judge Bosberg's deportation order is invalid, legally invalid,
00:07be placed in the record, and that the Harvard Law Review article entitled, District Court
00:14reforms, reforms, colon, nationwide injunctions, be placed in the record. Without objection,
00:21so ordered. And we now go to the ranking member, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.
00:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of the quote that goes something like,
00:31when the law is not on your side, argue the facts. And when the facts are not on your side,
00:38argue the law. And when neither is on your side, then pound the table. Well, Trump doesn't have the
00:47facts or the law on his side. And so with this exercise today, he is vicariously
00:55pounding the table. Professor Shaw, President Trump has targeted and attacked some very
01:03wealthy and powerful entities to send a message to the less powerful. Trump has attacked Columbia
01:10University. He has attacked the white-shoe, silk-stocking law firms like Paul Weiss and
01:17Scatting Arts. These powerful, wealthy entities can afford to sue to protect their interest and our
01:26rule of law. But instead, they chose to lay down and get steamrolled by the bully. Professor Shaw,
01:35how does laying down and getting steamrolled compromise the rule of law and undermine our democracy?
01:42Let me just say that, you know, there have been targeted entities, right, including a number of
01:48law firms that have, in fact, not laid down, that are, in fact, taking a strong position of resistance
01:54to what they believe to be the unlawful components of some of the targeting orders. So law firms,
01:59including Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, have made their responses and their views of the
02:06impermissibility of the targeting of law firms for no reason other than their decision to take on
02:12disfavored representations and to advance legal arguments that the president has personally
02:17objected to and sometimes been on the receiving end of. And so, you know, I do think that calling out
02:25clearly unlawful executive action is critically important, particularly for entities with
02:31resources and stature. And I think that it encourages the targeting in unlawful ways for
02:40institutions to refuse to take a stand. I think that the orders targeting law firms are clearly
02:46unlawful. I think that some judges have already so found, and I think that the judges that rule on
02:50those orders will continue to find that. And, you know, the last thing I'll say is I think that
02:55law firms that have decided not to fight and that are complying haven't bought themselves any
03:00security necessarily. I'm not sure there's any guarantee that they won't be subject to further
03:05targeting simply because they have acquiesced in sometimes coercive terms in the first instance.
03:10Yeah, when the bully knows that he can bully you, then he's going to continue bullying you until you
03:16stand up. And so I'm glad that these other law firms and other academic institutions have and are
03:24standing up. What would happen to access to justice for the least of these, if these very wealthy and
03:33powerful entities that are being targeted today, if each and every one of them laid down and just
03:39allowed themselves to be steamrolled?
03:42I think there could be a chilling effect in the willingness of law firms to take on disfavored
03:47representations. You know, the targeting has not been limited to law firms either, right? There has been
03:51an effort to suggest that sanctions will be sought by the Department of Justice against
03:57nonprofits and other legal actors that have engaged in litigation against the administration. And so
04:03it does seem quite clearly designed to reduce the amount of courageous litigation against and
04:10challenges to executive action. And so, you know, I think that the cost, the potential costs for
04:16the rule of law are, you know, incalculable.
04:20Yeah, because it's based on the adversarial system. And if you wipe out the adversaries,
04:27then you wipe out the adversarial system or the adversary system.
04:33I think that's right, that attacks on, you know, look, lawyers are not always popular, right? So
04:37attacking lawyers is not something that everyone is always going to object to, but judges need lawyers
04:42to present arguments to them. And our system of justice and the rule of law requires lawyers to
04:48take on representations, including potentially unpopular representations. So I do not think these
04:53attacks on, you know, white shoe law firms should be understood as just about white shoe law firms.
04:58I do think they are attacks on the very idea of access to justice and to the rule of law.
05:04And when you attack, in addition to the lawyers, you attack the judges and claim that they need to be
05:11impeached, not for committing high crimes and misdemeanors, but for simply ruling in a way
05:19that is against the bully. What impact does that have on our justice system and our democracy?
05:26I worry that the intent there is the same, to basically have a chilling effect on the willingness
05:31of judges to rule against the administration. In the same way, the, you know, I think part of the
05:36intent of these executive orders is to create a climate of fear and intimidation and to disincentivize
05:41taking on representations, including against the federal government. So I think the intended
05:45effect is likely the same. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
05:49He yields back. We now go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massey.
05:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing reminds me of a breakfast I had.