Senator advocating/justifying violence against judges?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, yesterday, said the following on the senate floor ...

    "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

( )


Is this acceptable dialog from a representative of the people, who has sworn to uphold the constitution of our country and to respect the rule of law? Has the Schiavo case driven our politicians insane?


mrC

[menace]

sounds like he's speculating outloud on the cause/effect of using appointed officials as opposed to judges installed by more democratic means.  I didn't watch the video but that blurb you quoted doesn't lead me to believe he's advocating violence against them.

[saint]

Never really understood the cry against "advocate judges" one way or another. Judges are directly or indirectly elected by the will of the people. Direct elections are self explanatory. Appointed judges are so appointed by the politicians we elect -- in other words, we elect a certain set of ideals and philosophies, and those ideals and philosophies are used when slecting and appointing those judges... an indirect election of those judges. I'd wager appointed judges often go through more scrutiny than directly elected judges, due to bi-partisan politics...

It's one of the reasons those on the left were so dismayed by Bush's re-election. He stands to make quite an impact on the judicial system through supreme court appointments this term.

--- saint

[mr.Curmudgeon]

sounds like he's speculating outloud on the cause/effect of using appointed officials as opposed to judges installed by more democratic means.  I didn't watch the video but that blurb you quoted doesn't lead me to believe he's advocating violence against them.

The trouble with this theory, as I see it, is that we already know why these judges and their families were targeted. It wasn't politically motivated, and I have a hard time believing Cornyn had to assume anything else. All he needs to do is pick up a newspaper.

The violence against these judges was carried out by a rapist and a white supremacist. They were angry because the judge ruled against them.

So unless the GOP is now opening their ranks to include rapists and murderers from the fringe, there is no reason to "speculate out loud" other than to twist these deeds so they better outline this politicians agenda against "activist judges."

After watching the video, it seems clear to me that he *knew* what he was saying was wrong, yet he said it anyway. He pauses at certain points as if to hold back, yet the script was already written. That's my take anyhow.

To me, it seems like he's seeking to justify domestic terrorism, and this from the party that continually scorns the act of exploring why Islamic terrorists attacked us on 9/11. I wonder if Cornyn would welcome open speculation about that?

It's irresponsible and dangerous, given that the reasons seem so clear. I imagine the killers feel some sense of righteous indignation, and possibly even some vindication given the words were spoken by a senator on the floor of our congress.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is interesting: (from Josh Marshall)

"Bear in mind that Cornyn is a former District Court judge, a former member of the Supreme Court of Texas and a former Texas Attorney General."

Furthermore, here's the statement by Cornyn, that preceded the statement I originally quoted, for more context:

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions. [Sometimes] the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."

The fact that he *was* a judge, coupled with the statement above, to me, provides even more reason to believe that he knew what he was saying and he wasn't merely "speculating."


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's one of the reasons those on the left were so dismayed by Bush's re-election. He stands to make quite an impact on the judicial system through supreme court appointments this term.

Another reason we're so dismayed (if I can be so bold as to speak for an entire group of people) is that Bush, himself, was originally appointed by "activist judges" in 2000, when the election could have just as easily gone to Gore.

Bush and his party should be thanking these judges, not speaking out against them. But given that they are, I think we need to be clear that the word "activist" is becoming a pejorative meaning "doesn't make the decisions I want them to".

mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

The violence against these judges was carried out by a rapist and a white supremacist. They were angry because the judge ruled against them.

The white supremacist you are referring to was cleared.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can do a quick search on the internet and find a white supremacist that killed a judge a few years ago and claim that

[Dartful Dodger]