I want to concede to my colleagues who argue for the constitutionality of the subject legislation that it is constitutional. This Congress can strip the Supreme Court of much of its jurisdiction, can abolish all appellate courts, and can abolish all district courts, but just because we can do something does not mean that we should do it. We have heard much about arrogant activist judges. What have arrogant activist judges done? In 1954 they revoked the reprehensible doctrine of separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education. In 1964 they reestablished the principle of one-person/one-vote in Reynolds v. Sims. In 1967 they respected the sanctity of all marriages, even those across ethnic lines. Because we can do something does not mean we should. Let us today not hang out the sign on the Federal courthouse door, ``Some Americans Need Not Apply.''
Michelle Wu: “I want to concede to my colleagues who argue for the constitutionality of the subject legislation that it is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of legislation affecting the judiciary.
Share
More from Michelle Wu
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased by $60,500,000)''. Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount…
My condolences and my thoughts are with the individual whose life has been lost and I'm also thinking of all of the people who were impacted here today in one of the busier parts of the city with this tragedy.
We won’t let you get away with kicking our loved ones off health care to fund tax breaks for the rich.
On behalf of the people of Boston, and in solidarity with the cities and communities targeted by this federal administration for our refusal to bow down to unconstitutional threats and unlawful coercion, we affirm our support for each…





