So prior to 1934, there was something called the ``conformity principle,'' which held that Federal Court procedures should be in accordance with the States wherein those Federal Courts sat; but that proved to be unworkable, so the rules enabling clause went into effect. Since then, we have left it to the Federal judiciary, through the Judicial Conference, to promulgate rules of procedure in both civil and criminal cases, and it has worked well. Now we have section 6 of this ``patent troll act'' that imposes upon our judicial rules of procedure. These rules have not been recommended by the Judicial Conference. In fact, the Judicial Conference, led by Chief Justice Roberts, is opposed to this change. Therefore, I think on constitutional grounds this should be defeated.
Share & report
More from Hank Johnson
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 4199. You don't get to pick the horse after that horse has already won the race, but that is exactly what my Republican…
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8666, which would amend title 28 of the United States Code to authorize holding court in the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello. Adding…
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. It has been a pleasure working hard with my Republican colleague (Mr. Tiffany). Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore…
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purposes of closing. Madam Speaker, by reallocating the judicial docket across the district, this bill ensures that 2.8 million residents of the Northern District of Alabama have…





