Amy Klobuchar Lays A Trap For Witness On ‘Attacking’ Judges, Nabs Chuck Schumer By Mistake

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) attempted to lay a trap for one of the witnesses at a hearing earlier this week and nabbed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) by mistake.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing titled, “Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions,” Klobuchar raised the question of publicly attacking judges on social media because they issue an unfavorable ruling.

Clearly jabbing at Trump and his administration — as well as Republican lawmakers who have moved to impeach the judges issuing blanket nationwide injunctions from their perches in district courts — Klobuchar directed the question to attorney Jesse Panuccio, who previously served as the Acting Associate Attorney General of the United States.

WATCH:

????DANG! Senator Amy Klobuchar was NOT expecting that answer! pic.twitter.com/zlNoHr5BUH

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 4, 2025

“Not in a partisan way, just normal, as a partner in a law firm, would you ever — have you ever taken to social media to personally attack a judge who ruled against you? That’s all my question is,” Klobuchar said.

“Senator, thanks for the question,” Panuccio replied. “I think that attacking judges personally, and not their reasoning, well, let me just give you a quote: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price —'”

Klobuchar attempted to interrupt and regain control of the situation as soon as she realized where he was going, but Panuccio kept going: “‘— you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with those awful decisions.’ That was something that Senator Schumer said, and I thought it was awful, and it unleashed a wave of violent threats against Supreme Court Justices. I do think that’s problematic, that kind of language.”

“Of course it is,” Klobuchar replied, shrugging off Panuccio’s statement. “I have no doubt the language is a problem on the left or right.”

During that same hearing, Panuccio advised the committee to find a way to stop judges from overreaching, or lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could continue the pattern of judge-shopping in favorable districts to tie the hands of the executive branch.

“I think the incentive for forum shopping is that you think you can get a judge who can be a ruler for the whole nation. So, fix the problem of judges overreaching,” he explained.

Panuccio also raised the topic in mid-March in an X post, saying: “Rule by district judges repeatedly overreaching to impose relief beyond parties to a case is not ‘rule of law.’ Congress should eliminate the nonparty injunction & make SCOTUS jurisdiction *mandatory* for any injunction certified as an emergency by DOJ.”

Rule by district judges repeatedly overreaching to impose relief beyond parties to a case is not “rule of law.” Congress should eliminate the nonparty injunction & make SCOTUS jurisdiction *mandatory* for any injunction certified as an emergency by DOJ.

— Jesse Panuccio (@JessePanuccioFL) March 19, 2025