Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
“Barriers to Justice and Accountability:
How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior.”
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Mr. Chairman,
Everyone should agree that all Americans -- individuals and business entities -- must have confidence that when they appear before a judge, they will receive a fair and unbiased adjudication of their claims and defenses.
Everyone knows how strongly I believe in Congress’ constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the other branches of the government. That includes reviewing the federal judiciary.
But that review must be fair and objective.
So I’m concerned given the less than objective title for this hearing.
Some might ask whether certain conclusions have been reached before this hearing has even started.
What businesses, just like all litigants, deserve from the judiciary and from Congress is a fair hearing, protection of their rights, and a measure of predictability in the law.
The United States was founded on the principle that all persons should receive equal justice under the law.
Americans believe that the most fundamental requirement for a legitimate legal system is that it be staffed by judges and justices who are fully committed to impartially adjudicating the cases that come before them, regardless of the identity or status of the litigants.
This belief should be of no surprise to anyone. A solemn pledge of impartiality is mandated by the oath taken by federal judges and justices.
And lest we forget, the phrase -- Equal Justice under Law -- is engraved above the United States Supreme Court Building.
Those are more than just pleasant sounding words.
The fundamental principle of Equal Justice under the Law has its origins in the foundations of Western Civilization and the birth of the concept of democracy.
Today, the concepts of Equal Justice under the Law and a truly impartial judiciary are at the heart of our legal system and our democratic system of government.
Contrary to this fundamental principle, it would seem that those who accuse the Supreme Court of being biased and pro-business, want justices and judges appointed who will decide cases based on the empathy that they have for certain groups of litigants or certain causes.
The appointment of an individual as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice because he or she possesses empathy or sympathy for certain categories of litigants over others is misguided, unwise and contrary to the fundamental principles upon which our governmental and judicial systems are based.
Under the ethical rules governing federal judges, judges are required to consider the controversies before them impartially and must disqualify themselves if their impartiality can be reasonably questioned.
A judge whose rulings are influenced by empathy violates his or her oath and the ethical canons governing the conduct of judges.
When it comes to judging, empathy is only good if you’re the person or the group that the judge has empathy for. In those cases, it’s the judge, not the law that determines the outcome. And that’s a dangerous road to go down if you truly believe in the rule of law.
Individuals with legitimate claims should have a chance to make them. But not all individuals have legitimate claims.
It appears that those who attack the Supreme Court for supposed bias in favor of business want to change our system.
Under their view, it would seem that legal disputes are nothing more than political popularity contests, where the side with the loudest voice or loudest advocacy groups wins, notwithstanding what the law actually provides.
Our Founders predicted this. They knew that judges and justices would be subjected to these kinds of attacks.
That’s why our Founders created the system that they did and provided for life tenure for federal judges and justices in Article III of the Constitution.
Under our Constitution and statutes, judges and justices must apply the law impartially and call cases as they see them without regard to the status or political views of the litigants.
That’s our system, it works, and it’s the best that mankind has ever known. Thank you.
-30-