Senate Hearing Erupts: Cruz Taunts 'Spartacus' Booker Over Judge Protection

Paul Riverbank, 6/4/2025Heated Senate exchange between Cruz and Booker exposes deep partisan divide over judicial protection.

I've covered countless hearings over two decades, but the confrontation between Senators Ted Cruz and Cory Booker – former presidential hopefuls both – stood out for its raw intensity. At issue was the increasingly thorny matter of protecting federal judges, though as often happens in today's Congress, the substance quickly gave way to partisan theater.

Cruz, wielding the gavel as subcommittee chair, launched what felt like a calculated broadside. He accused his Democratic colleagues of turning a blind eye to threats against conservative Supreme Court justices – a charge that visibly struck a nerve with Booker.

"A patent lie," Booker shot back, his usually measured demeanor giving way to visible frustration. The New Jersey senator – who, interestingly enough, has a personal connection to Justice Gorsuch from their Oxford days – pointed to behind-the-scenes work on judicial security that rarely makes headlines.

The exchange took an especially testy turn when Cruz, in his characteristic prosecutorial style, repeatedly interrupted Booker's responses about protests outside justices' homes. "I did not interrupt you, sir," Booker finally erupted, his voice echoing off the hearing room's wood-paneled walls.

What makes this more than typical Capitol Hill theater is the sobering backdrop: The U.S. Marshals Service has investigated north of 370 threats against federal judges since January alone. I'm reminded of a conversation I had last month with a veteran marshal who described the surge in what they call "pizza incidents" – unsolicited deliveries meant to signal knowledge of a judge's home address.

Cruz couldn't resist ending with a jab at Booker's "Spartacus moment" from previous hearings – the kind of personal dig that would've been unthinkable in the Senate of even a decade ago. But beyond the drama, yesterday's clash highlighted a troubling reality: While both parties claim to support judicial security, they can't even agree on how to discuss it without descending into partisan finger-pointing.

Chief Justice Roberts has taken the rare step of speaking out about threats to judicial independence. Having covered the Court for years, I can't recall a time when the institution's guardians felt more besieged – or when Congress seemed less equipped to address their concerns constructively.

The hearing ended as it began, with more heat than light. But for those of us who've watched the steady erosion of institutional norms, it felt like another crack in the foundation. The question isn't just how to protect judges – it's whether our political system can still rise above partisan warfare to do so.

The marble corridors of the Senate's Dirksen Building erupted in tension yesterday, as what began as a routine judiciary subcommittee hearing devolved into an extraordinary clash between two of the chamber's most prominent voices.I've covered countless hearings over two decades, but the confrontation between Senators Ted Cruz and Cory Booker – former presidential hopefuls both – stood out for its raw intensity. At issue was the increasingly thorny matter of protecting federal judges, though as often happens in today's Congress, the substance quickly gave way to partisan theater.Cruz, wielding the gavel as subcommittee chair, launched what felt like a calculated broadside. He accused his Democratic colleagues of turning a blind eye to threats against conservative Supreme Court justices – a charge that visibly struck a nerve with Booker."A patent lie," Booker shot back, his usually measured demeanor giving way to visible frustration. The New Jersey senator – who, interestingly enough, has a personal connection to Justice Gorsuch from their Oxford days – pointed to behind-the-scenes work on judicial security that rarely makes headlines.The exchange took an especially testy turn when Cruz, in his characteristic prosecutorial style, repeatedly interrupted Booker's responses about protests outside justices' homes. "I did not interrupt you, sir," Booker finally erupted, his voice echoing off the hearing room's wood-paneled walls.What makes this more than typical Capitol Hill theater is the sobering backdrop: The U.S. Marshals Service has investigated north of 370 threats against federal judges since January alone. I'm reminded of a conversation I had last month with a veteran marshal who described the surge in what they call "pizza incidents" – unsolicited deliveries meant to signal knowledge of a judge's home address.Cruz couldn't resist ending with a jab at Booker's "Spartacus moment" from previous hearings – the kind of personal dig that would've been unthinkable in the Senate of even a decade ago. But beyond the drama, yesterday's clash highlighted a troubling reality: While both parties claim to support judicial security, they can't even agree on how to discuss it without descending into partisan finger-pointing.Chief Justice Roberts has taken the rare step of speaking out about threats to judicial independence. Having covered the Court for years, I can't recall a time when the institution's guardians felt more besieged – or when Congress seemed less equipped to address their concerns constructively.The hearing ended as it began, with more heat than light. But for those of us who've watched the steady erosion of institutional norms, it felt like another crack in the foundation. The question isn't just how to protect judges – it's whether our political system can still rise above partisan warfare to do so.