In a heated exchange during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sparred over the alarming rise in threats made against federal judges, particularly during President Donald Trump’s second term.
The debate became particularly intense when Cruz criticized Democrats for their lack of action regarding judicial threats, highlighting their “utter silence” when conservative Supreme Court justices were threatened by protesters outside their homes.
Cruz’s remarks ignited a swift response from Booker, who vehemently defended his party’s stance and accused Cruz of distorting the facts.
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, titled The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump, centered on the increasing number of threats against U.S. judges and the response from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Cruz, serving as the chair of the subcommittee, began his remarks by directly addressing what he saw as a partisan double standard from Democrats, who, he argued, had remained silent in the face of threats made against conservative judges and justices, particularly following the protests outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ahead of the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.
Cruz did not mince words when it came to his criticism of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, who he accused of inciting violence by allegedly “unleashing” protesters.
These protesters gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in an attempt to influence their decision on abortion rights. Cruz emphasized that these protests were in clear violation of U.S.C. Section 1507, a law that prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice.
“Let’s be clear,” Cruz said, “The protests outside the justices’ homes were not just disruptive; they were a violation of the law. But instead of condemning the actions, the Democrats failed to act and have remained utterly silent on the matter.”
Cruz pointed out the irony of the situation, considering that Senate Democrats are now loudly decrying the threat against judges while their party had done nothing to prevent protests at the homes of conservative justices.
His criticisms were pointed: while Democrats were eager to take a stand on certain issues, they had, according to Cruz, ignored or even condoned the lawlessness in this instance.
Cruz’s attack was sharp, and it laid the groundwork for a passionate rebuttal from Booker. Booker wasted no time addressing Cruz’s claims, asserting that the suggestion of “silence” from Democrats was not only false but dangerous.
He argued that such rhetoric fed into the polarization of American politics and misrepresented the Democrats’ stance on the safety of judges.
In response to Cruz’s remarks, Booker declared, “Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed.” He insisted that the notion of Democrats being silent on judicial threats was not only “absurd” but also “a patent lie.”
Booker cited specific instances of Democratic condemnation of the protests and noted bipartisan efforts to ensure the safety of judges. He highlighted how Democrats had come together in the wake of the Dobbs protests to pass legislation that would provide round-the-clock security protection for justices, an initiative that garnered support from both sides of the aisle.
“This implication that there was silence from Democrats when there were threats to the homes of justices is simply false,” Booker added. He also pointed out that it was, in fact, Democrats who had pushed for the security measures and legislative action to protect judges.
His frustration was palpable as he criticized Cruz for resorting to partisan attacks rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion about the safety of federal judges and the increasing threats they faced.
Booker’s remarks were not just a defense of his colleagues but a direct challenge to Cruz’s narrative. He expressed his belief that perpetuating falsehoods about Democrats' stance on judicial safety would only fuel the partisan rancor that has come to dominate Washington.
His message was clear: the issue of threats to judges should transcend party lines, and it was essential for both sides to work together to address the growing danger facing the judiciary.
Cruz did not back down from his position, continuing to press the issue of legal accountability for those who had violated U.S.C. Section 1507 by protesting outside the justices’ homes.
He challenged Booker on the question of whether the DOJ had taken any action against the protesters, citing the Biden administration’s failure to prosecute anyone under the law.
“Did the Biden DOJ arrest a single person for violating the law?” Cruz asked, pushing for a direct answer. When Booker tried to respond, Cruz interrupted, insisting on a straightforward answer to the question.
The Texas senator’s remarks were a direct challenge to the Biden administration’s handling of protests against conservative justices. Cruz’s argument was that the lack of enforcement reflected a broader disregard for law and order, which he saw as emblematic of the Democratic Party’s failure to hold protesters accountable.
He also raised the issue of how such actions could undermine the credibility of the U.S. justice system by allowing unlawful protests to take place without consequence.
The subcommittee hearing came amid a sharp rise in threats against federal judges, particularly during Trump’s second term. According to the U.S.
Marshals Service, over 370 threats against federal judges were investigated since Trump’s inauguration in January, representing a significant spike compared to previous years.
This trend has raised concerns about the safety of judges, particularly those handling high-profile cases involving national security and the Trump administration’s executive actions.
As the number of threats against judges continues to rise, it is becoming increasingly clear that the judiciary is facing a crisis of safety and security.
The political rhetoric surrounding high-profile cases, such as the Dobbs decision, has only exacerbated tensions, creating an environment in which threats and intimidation are seen as acceptable forms of protest.
This atmosphere of heightened animosity against the judiciary is something that both parties must address, regardless of political affiliation.
Booker and Cruz’s exchange highlights the divide in how each side approaches this issue. While Booker emphasizes the need for unity and bipartisan efforts to protect judges, Cruz focuses on the legal and procedural aspects of the problem, calling for stricter enforcement of laws that prohibit protests outside justices’ homes.
Both approaches have their merits, but it is clear that the growing threat to the judiciary requires a coordinated and bipartisan response that prioritizes the safety of judges over partisan bickering.
In the backdrop of this Senate debate is former President Donald Trump, who has been a frequent target of judicial opposition throughout his presidency.
Trump has often criticized what he views as “activist judges” who have ruled against his administration’s policies, particularly in cases involving immigration, national security, and executive power.
His remarks about the judiciary have sparked heated debates about the role of judges in shaping public policy and the extent to which they should be held accountable for their decisions.
Trump’s criticisms of the judiciary have often been accompanied by calls for reform and greater transparency in the judicial system. His support for conservative judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, has reshaped the U.S. judiciary in a way that many conservatives see as a necessary corrective to what they view as liberal overreach.
However, Trump’s comments about “activist judges” have also contributed to a climate of tension and mistrust between the executive branch and the judiciary.
Despite the political rhetoric, it is clear that the safety and integrity of the judicial system must remain paramount. Judges are tasked with making impartial decisions based on the law, and they must be able to do so without fear of intimidation or threats.
The responsibility to protect the judiciary falls on all branches of government, regardless of political affiliation, and both Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure that judges are able to perform their duties without undue interference.
The heated exchange between Senators Cory Booker and Ted Cruz underscores the deep divisions within Congress over the issue of judicial threats and the role of the judiciary in American democracy.
While both senators have valid points regarding the importance of judicial safety and accountability, it is clear that the current political climate has made it difficult to address these issues in a meaningful and bipartisan way.
In the face of rising threats against federal judges, it is essential that both parties put aside their differences and work together to ensure the safety and security of the judiciary.
The rise in threats against judges is not just a problem for one political party—it is a crisis that affects the integrity of the entire justice system. The judiciary must be allowed to operate free from intimidation, and lawmakers must take concrete steps to protect judges and ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
As the debate continues, it is essential to remember that the safety of our judges is not a partisan issue—it is a matter of national importance. Both Democrats and Republicans must find common ground to address this growing threat and ensure that the judiciary remains an independent and impartial institution, capable of upholding justice and the rule of law.
