Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Monday on CNN’s “The Source” that President Donald Trump has America “staring the death of democracy in the eyes.”
Partial transcript as follows:
COLLINS: Senator Murphy, as we look at the developments that have happened, in the last 48 hours, what are your concerns about this moment that we’re at with the courts, with the President, and with this suggestion from two of his top advisers that maybe they defy the court’s rulings?
MURPHY: Yes, listen, I mean, this isn’t hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now. The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. And whether we like it or not, the courts interpret the law.
So yes, throughout the history of the United States, the courts have made rulings on when the executive branch is exercising legal power, and when they are going beyond the power that they have, either constrained by statute, or by the Constitution, just as they regularly rule on whether or not individuals have complied with the law or violated the law, whether those be civil laws or criminal laws.
If the President of the United States says, You know what, I don’t care what the courts say, I’m going to do whatever the hell I want? That’s essentially the end of the rule of law. Because if the President isn’t bound by our laws and the Constitution, then why would anybody else be bound by our laws and the Constitution? This is a really dire moment.
And no, so far, they’ve been talking tough, but I think largely have complied with these court orders. I think there’s going to be a question as to how well they have complied with the orders. But if they were to outright ignore an order, as JD Vance and Elon Musk are suggesting, that is maybe the greatest challenge to our democracy in any of our lifetimes.
COLLINS: But you’re saying we’re not there yet, basically?
MURPHY: Well, listen, on this specific question of whether or not they are prepared to openly violate a court order? We are not there. They are not complying with the existing court orders, but they are in partial compliance.
But if they were to openly declare that because they disagree with, for instance, a court’s order to reopen USAID, or to get Elon Musk out of the Treasury Department, simply because on the merits, they disagree with the court’s ruling, then you are clearly in the most serious constitutional crisis, I mean, arguably, of the last 100 years.
COLLINS: And so what happens? I just want to game this out. If that happens, and you’re saying that you don’t think it has yet, then what’s next, if that — if they do defy a court order. And it’s not just a tweet or a Truth Social post. It’s them telling a judge, We think you’re wrong, we’re not going to comply with this. Then what happens?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, listen, I am not an active-practice lawyer. But the first thing you do would be to go back to the court, and hold the administration or the individuals, who are not complying, in contempt. And there are a series of remedies that the court can order if someone is in contempt, including jailing them. So, there is a series of escalatory steps that–
COLLINS: But who would be responsible for enforcing that?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, ultimately, that’s law enforcement. So, there’s where you get in trouble.
This is why somebody like JD Vance has suggested that there may be no remedy, ultimately, for a violation of a court order, because it would be law enforcement in control of the executive branch that may ultimately have to enforce the order. So, therein lies the crisis that ultimately becomes a civil and political crisis for the country. Listen, let’s hope we don’t get there. Let’s hope that this is bluster.
Follow Pam Key on X @pamkeyNEN
