James Ho, nominee to be a judge for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Nov. 15, 2017. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
"You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like. That’s not protecting the judiciary, that’s politicizing the judiciary," Ho said, arguing that such statements actually harm the cause they try to further. "Because one of two things turns out to be true when you’re selective in this way. And either of these options, I think, is a bad thing. Option number one is that you’re basically lying, that you actually don’t care about this principle because you didn’t stand up for it when the shoe was on the other foot, and so you’re telling the world essentially we’re not seriously committed to judicial independence."
"The alternative is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling the truth – you do care about this, this principle, whether it’s judicial independence or free speech. I think this concept applies to a lot of things," Ho continued. "If you’re telling the truth, you really care about this principle, but there are just some people who have views that are so anathema to you that you don’t think they are worthy of this principle that you expound on."
J. Michelle Childs testifies during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on April 27, 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
It began by saying that "recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law."
"In the history of our Republic, there has always been tension between the three separate and equal branches of the federal government, including criticism of judicial interpretations. The FJA strives to ensure that accurate information is shared with all American citizens regarding the role of the judiciary as defined in the U.S. Constitution: to impartially interpret the laws that have been created by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the Executive branch," the group said. "Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require."
The group commended those, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, "who have commented recently on the rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties," the statement said. "The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary."
Danielle Wallace is a breaking news and politics reporter at Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to danielle.wallace@fox.com and on X: @danimwallace.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-appointed-trump-quits-group-over-statement-threats