During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, several of President Donald Trump’s nominees for senior Justice Department roles were grilled by Democratic senators about whether it would be acceptable for a president to disregard a court order. The nominees, however, pointed out that they couldn’t provide a definitive answer without more specific details.
Aaron Reitz, nominated by Trump for an assistant attorney general position, expressed that it would be too case-specific to make a blanket statement on the matter when asked by Sen. Dick Durbin. Reitz, who currently serves as Chief of Staff to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, emphasized that officials should abide by court rulings but refrained from giving a broad response.
Similarly, John Sauer, Trump’s pick for U.S. solicitor general, also avoided providing a direct answer to Durbin’s hypothetical questions during the hearing. Sauer, a former Missouri solicitor general, highlighted the importance of following court orders but declined to elaborate on potential exceptions.
The discussion touched on historical cases like Korematsu v. United States and Dred Scott v. Sandford, with Sauer referencing them as examples of past judicial decisions that were later overturned or considered flawed. Despite the complexities raised during the hearing, the nominees emphasized the general principle that officials should comply with court orders.
Later on, Sen. Cory Booker directly questioned Reitz about whether he believed the government could defy a court order if there was a moral disagreement. The nominees’ responses highlighted the nuanced and challenging nature of balancing legal obligations with ethical considerations in the realm of government decision-making.
During the hearing, Senator Booker specifically referenced a tweet from Reitz, in which Booker mentioned Reitz’s comparison of the Dred Scott decision to the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. Reitz responded to Booker by stating that the premise of the question was too hypothetical for a precise answer. Later on, Senate Democrats found some support from Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who cautioned the nominees about undermining federal court decisions. Kennedy emphasized the importance of following court orders, even if disagreeing with them, and highlighted the necessity of respecting the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. He expressed his concern over attempts in Washington to undermine the judiciary’s credibility and stressed the essential role of the judiciary’s legitimacy in upholding the rule of law. Kennedy concluded by reminding everyone that the judiciary’s power lies in its legitimacy, as it does not have its own enforcement mechanism like an army.
