Democrats Pushback Against Subpoenas of Supreme Court Allies

The Democratic Party’s latest plan to subpoena members of the Supreme Court, leverage alliance deals with justices, and possibly even impeach justices of the Supreme Court for alleged ethical wrongdoings has met an onslaught of criticism and harsh pushback. The plan, championed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, has been in the spotlight since former President Donald Trump’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s decision to reject a challenge to the election. For weeks now, Schumer has sought to push a congressional resolution of inquiry into the Supreme Court as well as to impose limits on the power of the court, and to allow state legislatures to overturn Supreme Court rulings. His push has intensified since the Supreme Court struck down the deterrence position held by Republicans. While Democratic leaders, including Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have stood behind the plan, many Democrats have drawn a red line with the party, expressing serious opposition to the resolution. They argue that the justice system and Supreme Court should remain separate and independent from any partisan maneuverings. The resolution’s initial draft included language suggesting subpoenas of Supreme Court justices as well as creating alliances among them. These language components have since been removed and a new draft does not include such language. However, including both allies and pushback on language contained in the resolution suggests that the Democratic Party itself is divided on the issue. Critics on the right have blasted the proposal, claiming that it is an unprecedented and unreasonable attempt to politically influence the nation’s highest court. Those on the left argue that partisan politics threaten the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and its independence from outside pressures. Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is opposed to the resolution, blasted the idea of subpoenaing Supreme Court justices, saying that it would “encroach upon the independence of justices so that they can decide the law on its own terms, independently of other branches of government.” Supporters of the proposal are quick to point out that it does not actually include language to subpoena a justice, criminalize their actions, or impeach them. However, even without the exciting language of potential consequences, several members of Congress have described the plan as “outside interference” with the judiciary. Impeaching or penalizing a justice for wrongdoing is a serious and weighty subject that transcends political lines. If the proposed resolution were to pass, it could spur a cycle of confrontation over the rule of law between Congress and the Supreme Court, weakening the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution and creating a long-term power struggle. For now, the plan is still in its formative stage and discussions about whether to move forward with the resolution are ongoing. Both sides are sure to continue to fight for what they view is the best path forward for the rule of law. The Democratic Party’s latest plan to subpoena members of the Supreme Court, leverage alliance deals with justices, and possibly even impeach justices of the Supreme Court for alleged ethical wrongdoings has met an onslaught of criticism and harsh pushback. The plan, championed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, has been in the spotlight since former President Donald Trump’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s decision to reject a challenge to the election. For weeks now, Schumer has sought to push a congressional resolution of inquiry into the Supreme Court as well as to impose limits on the power of the court, and to allow state legislatures to overturn Supreme Court rulings. His push has intensified since the Supreme Court struck down the deterrence position held by Republicans. While Democratic leaders, including Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have stood behind the plan, many Democrats have drawn a red line with the party, expressing serious opposition to the resolution. They argue that the justice system and Supreme Court should remain separate and independent from any partisan maneuverings. The resolution’s initial draft included language suggesting subpoenas of Supreme Court justices as well as creating alliances among them. These language components have since been removed and a new draft does not include such language. However, including both allies and pushback on language contained in the resolution suggests that the Democratic Party itself is divided on the issue. Critics on the right have blasted the proposal, claiming that it is an unprecedented and unreasonable attempt to politically influence the nation’s highest court. Those on the left argue that partisan politics threaten the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and its independence from outside pressures. Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is opposed to the resolution, blasted the idea of subpoenaing Supreme Court justices, saying that it would “encroach upon the independence of justices so that they can decide the law on its own terms, independently of other branches of government.” Supporters of the proposal are quick to point out that it does not actually include language to subpoena a justice, criminalize their actions, or impeach them. However, even without the exciting language of potential consequences, several members of Congress have described the plan as “outside interference” with the judiciary. Impeaching or penalizing a justice for wrongdoing is a serious and weighty subject that transcends political lines. If the proposed resolution were to pass, it could spur a cycle of confrontation over the rule of law between Congress and the Supreme Court, weakening the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution and creating a long-term power struggle. For now, the plan is still in its formative stage and discussions about whether to move forward with the resolution are ongoing. Both sides are sure to continue to fight for what they view is the best path forward for the rule of law.