Dem Rep. Brings The Receipts After Newt Gingrich Claims Biden Judges Are Staging 'Coup'

On Tuesday, the House Democrats of the Judiciary Committee countered Republican efforts to undermine the constitutional role of an independent federal Judiciary branch—which is to provide checks and balances against the Executive and Legislative branches.

House Republicans—led by Judiciary Committee chair and friend-of-Donald, Jim Jordan—seek to retaliate against federal judges for following the United States Constitution and the rule of law.

MAGA Republican President Donald Trump has been handed defeat and humiliation by federal courts across the country. They are blocking his unconstitutional and/or illegal executive orders through injunctions and unfavorable rulings.

In one particularly memorable exchange from Tuesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Colorado Democratic Representative Joe Neguse went toe to toe with former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Sharing a clip from the exchange on his social media, Representative Neguse captioned the reel:

"When federal judges blocked executive orders issued by President Biden, Newt Gingrich had no objection."

"But now that Donald Trump is President, he calls the same a 'judicial coup d'état' 🤷🏽🤷🏽🤷🏽"

You can see the clip here:

Retired Republican Speaker Gingrich had been called to testify by Republican members of the Judiciary Committee.

His role in the hearing was to bolster the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Judiciary branch's ability to do their job. Gingrich called injunctions and other rulings that went against the Trump administration "judicial coup d'états."

But Representative Neguse pointed out the insincerity of Gingrich's concerns about judicial overreach.

Neguse remarked:

"I didn’t hear much from you about 'judicial coup d'états' when President Biden’s policies were being rejected by federal judges across the country."

"It is very convenient now, lo and behold, that you take great issue and you describe it as a judicial coup d'état when I didn’t hear these words two years ago."

The Colorado Democrat also cited articles Gingrich had written to voice his objections to the courts'—and Congress'—handling of cases against a Republican presidential administration. In stark contrast, Rep. Neguse pointed out Gingrich's complete silence when 14 judges appointed by Republicans ruled against Democratic President Joe Biden.

Neguse quipped:

"Apparently you were just waiting to come testify in front of the [Judiciary] committee to call that a 'judicial coup d'état' against President Biden."

Neguse shared the full 6½ minute exchange between himself and Gingrich on YouTube.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

People across social media shared their appreciation for Neguse's effective dismantling of Gingrich's so-called concerns over the power of the Judiciary, pointing out how disingenuous the Republican pearl-clutching is.

They also shared their thoughts on Gingrich and his congressional legacy.

@YouKnowNothing45/Instagram

@YouKnowNothing45/Instagram

In an official statement, House Judiciary Democrats summed up their GOP colleagues' goal in one sentence:

"MAGA Republicans want to change how the judicial system works because Donald Trump keeps losing in court."

During Tuesday's hearing, expert testimony was provided by Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at Penn Carey Law School at the University of Pennsylvania. Penn Carey—an Ivy League institution founded in 1790—is consistently ranked as one of the top law schools in the United States.

Georgia Democratic Representative Hank Johnson asked Professor Shaw:

"When you attack the judges and claim that they need to be impeached, not for high crimes and misdemeanors, but for simply ruling in a way that is against [Donald Trump], what impact does that have on our justice system and our democracy?"

Professor Shaw replied:

"I worry that the intent there is the same, to basically have a chilling effect on the willingness of judges to rule against the Administration. In the same way, I think part of the intent of these executive orders is to create a climate of fear and intimidation and to disincentivize taking on representations, including against the federal government."

Highlighting the constitutional separation of powers, Vermont Democratic Representative Becca Balint asked:

"Congress does not remove judges because of a disagreement with how they ruled. Is that correct? And why is that?"

Professor Shaw explained:

"Judicial independence requires the judges not be constantly afraid that they will be removed from office if they issue a decision that is unpopular or that is opposed to the interests of the political powers or that runs against the political winds."

"Judicial independence requires judges to be confident and secure in their rulings and not fear the consequences of those rulings other than reversal on appeal."

Democratic Judiciary Committee Ranking Member and Pennsylvania Representative Mary Gay Scanlon is also a Penn Carey Law School graduate.

Representative Scanlon remarked:

"Some of our colleagues and the administration itself have suggested that since Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, his actions and his interpretation of the law can’t be questioned. Can you explain why that’s a problem under our constitutional system?"

Professor Shaw responded:

"The single most important core structural principle in our Constitution is that power be divided and that power check power because too much concentration of power leads to tyranny."

"So, all that we have seen with the rulings that have come down that have found violations of either statutes passed by Congress or provisions of the Constitution is the separation of powers working as intended."

"So, the President having the sole and final authority to determine the meaning of laws, statutes, or the Constitution is just fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of separated powers that is the core of our Constitution."

California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren asked why Trump and Republicans' efforts to undermine judicial independence are so damaging to the separation of powers.

Professor Shaw responded:

"I do want to be clear that I think that there is a healthy inter-branch debate and dialogue that can include criticisms, including sharp criticisms of the rulings handed down by district judges…"

"So I don’t think any of that is unhealthy or destructive, but I do think that moving into an era in which substantive disagreement with the rulings of federal judges gave rise to impeachment proceedings would involve an escalation of this kind of inter-branch warfare and the politicization of the judiciary that would be extremely damaging to judicial independence and to the role of courts in our democracy."

North Carolina Democratic Representative Deborah Ross asked what Congress can do to "stand up against Trump’s attacks on the judiciary to ensure it remains functioning, independent and co-equal in our system of governance."

Professor Shaw explained:

"I certainly don’t think resolutions of impeachment for no other reason than rulings that members disagree with, are constructive from the perspective of preserving judicial independence."

"One thing that I would imagine that bipartisan support could easily rally behind is judicial security, right? We are in a moment in which we have read about the U.S. Marshal Services’ concern about heightened levels of threats to federal judges."

As stated by the House Judiciary Committee Democrats in their press release:

"President Trump and MAGA Republicans want to impeach judges because they don’t like their rulings."

Maryland Democratic Representative and House Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin stated:

"Chief Justice John Roberts has said that the correct response to disagreement with the district court decision is to appeal it. I just heard Speaker Gingrich called this a 'judicial coup d'état'—and he said the Chief Justice should stop lecturing the rest of us."

"Who’s right? Is it Newt Gingrich or is the Chief Justice Roberts?"

Professor Shaw responded:

"In this instance, Chief Justice Roberts. We have no tradition of impeaching judges."

"Appeal is the remedy for disagreeing with the district judge… There are many remedies our system affords if there is some sort of problem with the judge presiding over a case, but impeachment has never been in that tool kit."

In other mic drop moments during the hearing, Washington Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal stated:

"Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should consider that the very reason that Donald Trump has faced more nationwide injunctions than Joe Biden is precisely because Trump is grabbing unprecedented power from Congress and from the judiciary—power that is not accorded to any President because we do not have kings in this country."

"If you try to eliminate birthright citizenship, jail people for free speech, slash funding and fire people and eliminate departments that are established by Congress, if you try to use Cold War era regulations to do mass deportations… Yeah, you’re gonna get nationwide injunctions."

"So maybe, if you don’t like the injunctions, stop doing the illegal stuff."

California Democratic Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove added:

"In organized sports, the most classless and unpalatable thing you can do is blame your loss on the referee, or blame the umpire for the outcome of the game… The games do not work without officials and our system of justice does not work without judicial officials.

"[SCOTUS Chief] Justice Roberts says, 'All we do is call balls and strikes.' Judges like referees are a neutral party. You don’t always like what they say, you might not always agree with their calls, but you have to respect the institution and the officials."

"And if you take away the one element that brings integrity with it, then the competition itself has no integrity."

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Democratic Member Raskin concluded with an appeal to Republicans. He asked them to honor the Constitution and their own status as members of Congress.

Representative Raskin implored:

"I call on my colleagues right now to call off the campaign to impeach federal judges for doing their jobs."

"I call on them to demand that the Trump Administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever ones they want to appeal, and to demand the return of people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so-called plane full of 'gang bangers'."

"And I especially call on them today to denounce all violent threats, doxing, online vilification, and threats against our judges."

"This is the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, and we should act like it."