The Idiot. http://www.oliverwillis.com/files/Cornyn Judges Quote.wmv Backhand justification for violence against judges. You go John.
Read about this in some of the liberal blogs and I don't really think he is justifying violence against judges. I think he is simply giving his opinion as to why it happens. The problem is the he is not condemning the violence so he comes off looking pretty bad.
his opinion on why it happens is completely off base. he is trying to draw a link between "activist" judges who take the law into their own hands and the two recent cases of dangerous criminals running rampant. neither of the "recent cases of courthouse violence" had anything to do with a perception of liberal activist judges who subvert the people and take the law into their own hands. i doubt that the rapist who was about to go down for a long time thought "man, those liberal activist judges really piss me off. im going to take the law into my own hands. make a statement to those liberal activist judges". that was a desperate man who was at the end of a rope. to try to imply that it was politically motivated is moronic. same with the other guy, who killed the judges mom and husband in chicago. that guy had a grudge against the judge b/c she ruled against him in some case. it was personal and he was obviously psycho. and wasnt the case a medical malpractice suit? the kind that dubbya and the republicans want to do away with? if anything, this particular liberal activist judge was doing what the president would have wanted. there was no need for that statement. very irresponsible. certainly not going to do anything to discourage nutballs from taking out some judge. same people who kill abortion doctors would be the ones to pull it off. its odd how these guys didnt become liberal activist judges until they ruled against what the far right-wing wanted. this comes from the same place as the "if you dont support the war in iraq than you hate america" mindset.
A liberal source but you wingnuts can just read the direct Cornyn quotes. http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=581 Cornyn Refuses to Apologize, Defends Earlier Remarks Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was on the floor of the Senate last night trying to limit the fallout from his incendiary remarks about judges. But he didn’t apologize or repudiate what he said. Instead, he just lashed out at his critics. Cornyn began: In other words, Cornyn stands by everything he said. The real problem is, of course, with the people who criticized him. Here’s Cornyn: Cornyn doesn’t regret what he said. He only regrets that people took what he said “out of context.” ------------------ Here is previous Cornyn comment as heard in the video link above with a bit more context (in case you are concerned that he was taken out of context).
Cornyn is a complete and utter idiot. How the people of Texas, several here, like myself, excluded, could elect this clown is beyond me. He's an embarrassment to the state of Texas. So is DeLay, but DeLay is shrewd, whereas Cornyn is just stupid. Keep D&D Civil!!
Am I missing something?? What did he say wrong here? Is anyone denying that dissatisfaction with what people perceive to be an unaccountalbe judiciary MIGHT lead to violence against judges?? Help me out...maybe I'm reading this wrong. If that's all he's saying, I don't get the criticism. I'm not sure he's drawing a definite nexus between the 2 events recently I can think of off the top of my head of courthouse violence...but rather saying that all of it builds up and builds up to a point where people lose control.
Makes you miss the real, larger than life Senators, Presidents, Representatives and Govenors that this state has produced...on BOTH sides of the isle. Tower, Sam Rayburn, LBJ, Benson, etc...
You are missing something. Connecting the dots ... Cornyn is clearly pandering to the religious right wingnuts who are currently POed at the Florida and Federal judiciaries since they did not get their way. Cornyn is telling the wingnuts that it is OK to think violent thoughts wrt the judiciaries, since they obviously are "activists" who have "taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions". (This implies also that the judiciaries failed to do their job in the Terri Schiavo case.) Cornyn is telling the wingnuts that the recent slate of violence against judges is somehow understandable given the current wingnut discontent. As pointed out above, the recent judicial violence has zero correlation with the wingnut discontent. Cornyn is saying that if the wingnuts are thinking that the judges got what they deserved, then that is understandable and OK in his book. And finally, Cornyn might also be implying future direct wingnut violence against judges should come as a surprise to noone.
wait a second...where did he say it was OK or understandable?? after 9/11 we listened to a litany of people tell us how evil we are around the world and how it justified what Osama did...or at least provided a rationale explanation for the "why" question. we may not like the answer to the "why" question...but it's there staring at us, anyway. as a lawyer, all i hear is people b****ing about the judiciary. every party i go to...every event i'm at...when it's discovered i'm a lawyer, someone wants to b**** about something a judge did somewhere. whether it's hanging up the Ten Commandments or legislating from the bench, everyone has an opinion. and the perception among many is, "how the hell are these guys so important and yet are completely unaccountable to the people at the same time?? how is that fair/right/just??" i'm not saying i agree with those sentiments. i don't. i think an independent judiciary is CRUCIAL. but i can certainly understand those arguments. and to the extreme, i could see someone using them in a causal way to exert force against the judiciary because of it. of course, i wouldn't support that...or pat that on the back.
He is talking in code to the wingnuts. How much attention does Cornyn give to explaining the judicial violence versus denouncing it. And his harshest words are targeted toward activist judges and not the people who committed violence against judges.
I'll tell you what the big deal is MadMax. I don't think he was justifying the violence in any way, I think he was trying to use it. The 2 recent acts of violence against Judges and their family had absolutely nothing to do with politics. He's trying to scare judges into thinking that it could happen to them is they don't toe his line(if judges were activists in his favor, would he say anything?). I just think it's deplorable that he'd take 2 instances of violence against judges, one where a guy was just trying to shoot his way out and escape judgement, the other a cray guy who killed a judges parents for dismissing his lawsuit, and claim that they are the result of people being angry over none accountability. "Is anyone denying that dissatisfaction with what people perceive to be an unaccountalbe judiciary MIGHT lead to violence against judges??" When you think about it like that, you give validation to the acts of irrational people. Nobody should believe that normal people will eventually try to murder judges if they make decisions they don't agree with.
What's so ironic about listening to politicians complain about unelected judges not following the will of the people is that that is the reason why judges aren't suposed to be elected. I think that if judges, especially federal judges started going along with the will of the people all the time we would be introuble.
The judiciary is supposed to be unaccountable; they are supposed to serve as translators and arbiters of the text of the law into reality. The reasonable beef that the Republican Party has against judges is that they believe in the concept of a "living constitution" which evolves with the moral evolution of the society, and that they are empowered to assert their judgement of how that morality has evolved. That’s how things like Roe v. Wade get done. What he's asking for is exactly what got the Republicans mad at judges to begin with. There's a really good talk given by Antonin Scalia at rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ac031905.rm from CSPAN from a speech given at the Woodrow Wilson institute on about constitutional interpretation that details the philosophical issues and absolutely applies to the Terry Schiavo. It's a 60 minute speech but you really only need 10 minutes to get it. I don't agree with the man on a lot of issues, but he managed to convince me that Roe v. Wade was an abomination of the power of the Supreme Court, even though I support abortion. It's dry CSPAN stuff, but for a smart lawyer like you it should be no problem. There's a great quip made by P.J. O'Rourke who said something like "The Republicans said that Washington was corrupt, and when they took power 10 years ago, they set out to prove it was true." While the statement was somewhat more funny than true, there is quite a bit of truth somewhere there. Cornyn wants the judges to do for his position, that which would outrage him if it were extended to people with divergent viewpoints.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3122277 Cornyn responds to backlash from judicial speech He says it gave Dems a weapon ahead of hearings By GEBE MARTINEZ Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau Cornyn WASHINGTON - Sen. John Cornyn admitted Wednesday that he blundered in a speech on the Senate floor suggesting a connection between courthouse violence and political decisions by judges. "The lesson I learned is that Washington is a very tough political environment and if people can take what you say out of context and use it against you, they will," the first-term Republican said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. Cornyn said the speech gave Democrats a weapon to attack him and other Republicans who want to change Senate rules to limit the Democrats' ability to block President Bush's judicial nominees. Concerned about rhetoric In his lengthy speech, Cornyn criticized judges for making political decisions rather than enforcing laws. He added: "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 to the point where some people engage in violence." Cornyn's words stunned many, including Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., who asked, "Where did that come from?" "I guess the other lesson I learned was not to wonder aloud on the Senate floor," Cornyn said. The political damage deepened when his views were likened to those of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, who said that judges in the Terri Schiavo case will "answer for their behavior." Cornyn stressed his speech "was unrelated to anything that either Congressman DeLay (said) or the Terri Schiavo case." A day after his initial remarks, Cornyn returned to the Senate chamber and said he, too, was concerned about "overheated rhetoric" about judges by both parties. "Our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary and about judicial nominees must be toned down," he said. "And our broken judicial confirmation process must be fixed, once and for all." Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, then commended Cornyn's clarification, noting the initial comments "were difficult to resolve, and they seemed inconsistent with my knowledge of him." But other Democratic leaders were not mollified. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., entered into the Congressional Record a New York Times editorial that stated: "It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared." 'More than I expected' Cornyn said he was aware of the "hyper-politicized" atmosphere in Washington, but the reaction to his speech "was just more than I expected." Cornyn's comments came as the Senate braces for a possible showdown this month over judicial confirmations. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which includes Cornyn, is set to vote today on the controversial nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush nominated her almost four years ago but she has been blocked by Democrats. ____________________________________________________ wow! he blames others for taking what he said "out of context". it must be that biased liberal media again! and i cant believe that cornyn said his speech "was unrelated to anything that either Congressman DeLay (said) or the Terri Schiavo case." if thats the case than which "recent episodes of courthouse violence" was he refering to? to have both cornyn and delay making veiled threats towards judges should be a concern for everyone. these guys are basically, if not outright advocating, attempting to justify the murder of judges for their perceived liberalism or activism.
Yeah and Conservatives are mad at the Judiciary for interpretting the law tightly in the Schiavo case. The conservative movement now cares more about results than process.
What is really bizarre, and disgusting, is how they fail to mention that Republican appointed judges made the rulings that are being attacked by DeLay, Cornball and others in regards to the case in Florida. Funny, isn't it, that they always fail to mention that. (insert roll-eyes here) Keep D&D Civil!!
