TranslatePolitics.com

Recent debates

8 latest topics

09-03 Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 13 statements 09-03 Moment of Silence in Honor of the 25th Anniversary of September 11 2 statements 09-03 Honoring Former U.S. Representative Charles Hatcher of Georgia 2 statements 09-03 Recognizing Firefighters from California's Third Congressional District 17 statements 09-02 Saluting White Plains Beautification Foundation 2 statements 09-02 Celebrating Rural Lawyer Julie Bear 4 statements 09-02 Operation Midway Blitz Anniversary 2 statements 09-02 Catherine Watts Celebrates 100th Birthday 4 statements

Senate

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 808 (Executive Calendar)

2026-07-21 Issue 119 Showing 1–4 of 4

Official Congressional Record ↗

Marsha Blackburn

Republican

“I want the Senate to condemn a judge. The judge had sex in her office. The judge lied about it. I think the Senate should agree to condemn this. I did not include other things in my resolution. I want my resolution to pass without objection.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise today with a very simple request: I am asking that the Senate speak with a unanimous voice in condemning one of the worst acts of judicial misconduct we have seen in years. Judge Eleanor Ross has been a district judge in the Northern District of Georgia for over a decade, and it is clear that she engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her high office in the Federal judiciary. After a courageous law clerk came forward, a special committee on the Eleventh Circuit was appointed and ultimately made several deeply disturbing findings. First, based on testimony from Judge Ross' law clerks, the committee found that over the course of 2 years, Judge Ross engaged in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department. This conduct occurred in her judicial chambers during normal business hours within earshot of her law clerks. Now, think about that. On top of that, the Atlanta Police Department, in the words of the special committee, ``undoubtably was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated'' in the Northern District, underscoring how reckless the judge's misconduct truly was. Not only did this misconduct create a possibility of an appearance of impropriety, an affair like this also exposed Judge Ross to the possibility of extortion and blackmail, as the special committee noted. In addition to this egregious behavior in her chambers, the special committee also found an equally disturbing act of judicial misconduct: making false statements material to the committee's investigation. Judge Ross told the Eleventh Circuit's chief judge that she ``never engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse'' and that she was ``astounded and confused'' to be accused of this misconduct. Now, based on the committee's findings, we know that Judge Ross' statements to Chief Judge Pryor were patently false. They were knowingly false. We also know that it took Judge Ross nearly 2 weeks to retract the false statements. By the time she finally backtracked, the special committee had already collected substantial evidence that proved Judge Ross had made false statements. In short, once Judge Ross realized where the investigation was going, she decided to retract her false statements and admit to the misconduct allegations. The Judicial Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits the type of conduct that Judge Ross engaged in, specifically Canon 2 states that ``a Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.'' Canon 2A states that ``a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'' Commentary to Canon 2A states: The committee's findings, which I have just outlined, show that Judge Ross blatantly violated all three of these judicial canons. Now, I want to be clear, what I have just outlined is all that my resolution is asking that the Senate condemn. We are condemning this inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it. I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution. The committee included in its misconduct findings that Judge Ross attended a political function for DA Fani Willis. I find it unconscionable for a sitting Federal judge to have attended a partisan event with a district attorney who weaponized the judicial system in the way that Fani Willis did. I also firmly believe that Judge Ross, by lying to Chief Judge Pryor during the course of the Eleventh Circuit's investigation committed an impeachable offense, and I fully support the House's impeachment efforts. But I have not included those aspects in my resolution that I am about to ask unanimous consent for. The reason why? As I mentioned at the outset, I believe the Senate should speak with one voice and unanimously condemn Judge Ross' conduct. I don't want to give my Democrat colleagues any reason to object to this resolution. So what I am asking unanimous consent for is simple: a condemnation of Judge Ross' sexual misconduct and subsequent lying during the course of a judicial investigation. The American people deserve Federal judges who uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism on the bench; not those who turn their chambers into a venue for extramarital affairs. There is no reason any Member of this body should object to that resolution today. Mr. President, with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 808, which is at the desk; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Richard J. Durbin

Democrat

“I object to this resolution. The Senate has never done this before. The House should impeach judges first. Then the Senate can decide. We should not condemn a judge before we are the jury.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, you heard her lay out the case of wrongdoing by a judge. I am going to ask for the Senate to take action to condemn that conduct. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Turns out, it would be the first time in the history of the Senate that we do something like this. We asked the Congressional Research Service: Is there any Senate precedent for what the Senator from Tennessee is doing? They responded: There is no Senate precedent for either introducing or passing a Senate resolution condemning a judge's illegal misconduct. What? Out of thousands of judges in the United States at the Federal level, surely in history, someone has done something wrong that should be condemned, but it has never been done. Well, it gets down to some basic elements of constitutional law. You start with this, the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the United States says in article I, section 2, the House of Representatives shall have the ``sole power of impeachment''-- removal from office. The sole power of impeachment is in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. So why is that stopping us from this condemnation? Well, let me explain. Under the Constitution, Congress does not respond to judicial misconduct in the form of a Senate resolution. It never has. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, specifically the House Judiciary Committee, to investigate the allegations of misconduct and consider the next steps, including impeachment. But here is the critical element: Who is the jury? Where is the trial? It is right here. After someone has been impeached in the House of Representatives, for example a President, the case comes to the Senate for trial. I have sat through at least three of those, maybe more. So we are juries; the U.S. Senate is a jury. What this Constitution, again, tells us when it comes to the role of the Senate: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. No question about that. If the House impeaches, it is our job to decide whether we agree or not. It takes an extraordinary vote to impeach. And, also, let me be clear, this is critical: That is a pretty high standard, isn't it? You have to swear that what you are doing is constitutional or to the best of your ability. So it is an awesome responsibility. We sit like juries in criminal courts and civil courts across the United States, and we make bottom-line decisions as to whether the House impeachment shall be sustained. So the action starts in the House. If they vote to impeach, it comes to the Senate. The Senate sits as a jury and decides whether or not the impeachment goes through. That is why this resolution needs to be defeated. Senators serve as jurors in impeachment matters. Passing this resolution--passing this resolution, calling on the Senate to condemn this judge before there has been any effort at impeachment in the House of Representatives--is going to do what they call ``taint the jury.'' He would have already taken a position on the case as to who is right and who is wrong. You can't do that. Voir dire in the courtroom is the judge asking the basic question of potential jurors: Do you have any prejudice against this case that stops you from finding the truth? And people say: I don't. I have an open mind, and I will listen to the evidence and the law. Well, what the Senator from Tennessee wants us to do is to taint the jury, to get us on record before the House has any impeachment activity, before we sit as a jury as to how we are going to rule. That is why it has never been tried before on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I also note the resolution contains multiple material inconsistencies on what the Eleventh Circuit found during its investigation of Judge Ross' misconduct. This underscores that the Senate has not engaged, prior to the election of this resolution, in its own investigation or factfinding. The only factfinding we have is from one Senator in Tennessee. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no precedent for the Senate adopting a resolution condemning alleged judicial misconduct. The Senate has never done this before. We should not establish a new precedent here, especially when it could taint the jury pool if the Senate later considers articles of impeachment, if that ever happens. It could also open the door to Senate resolutions about other instances of judicial misconduct. We must have the highest standards for Federal judges, and the alleged conduct in this case is inappropriate, unacceptable, perhaps even indefensible. But the Constitution is clear. It is a matter for the House to consider at this point rather than the Senate. For these reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The objection is heard. The Senator from Tennessee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marsha Blackburn

Republican

“You want to protect a judge from your party. You say this is not normal. You say the Senate should not talk about this. That is not true. We should say her actions are bad. You do not want to say that. You are trying to stop us.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I think it is clear what Senator Durbin is doing today. He is seeking to protect a Democrat-appointed judge, appointed under President Obama, and trying to distract from her clear misconduct. Now, at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the responsibility of advice and consent. We have the responsibility of oversight. And one thing that I will note: I think the Senator has misunderstood the resolution. It is not an impeachment resolution. It does not call for an impeachment. It explicitly points to the information in the Eleventh Circuit's special committee report and pulls directly from that report what occurred in Judge Ross' chambers, and therefore there needs to be a condemnation of this activity. Passing this would have the Senate speak with a unanimous voice against this activity, and I would have encouraged my colleagues to pass the resolution and to make clear that this conduct falls far beneath the high standards we should be holding the Federal judiciary to every single day. It is clear the Senate Democrats are not interested in that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Richard J. Durbin

Democrat

“You say we should not judge the judge. That is not for us to do. You say the House should decide. You say maybe later the Senate could decide. You say it would be bad to say she is bad now. You say it could make people have bad thoughts about her. That is why you do not want to talk about her actions now. You want to stop us from talking about this.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates