I was watching the Senate this afternoon. They were in a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak on any issue that they pleased. One that really caught my attention was from Sen . John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee.

His speech was the usual Republican rant against "judicial activism". He denounced the Supreme Court's ruling on the death penalty for minors. One thing he said, however, was way over the top. This is a quote from his speech.

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "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." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]

Sen. Cornyn essentially excused the actions of Timothy McVeigh as well as all of the recent attacks on Judges. The GOP's war on judges is getting ridiculus. If Sen. Cornyn has any decency he will resign from the Judiciary Committee.

Sources: Kos (http://dailykos.com/story/2005/4/4/185736/4199) Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/)

UPDATE: Congressman John Conyers has has posted a response to Cornyn's statements on his blog! (http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000046.htm)

While I'm not happy about the idea of people taking the law into their own hands, I didn't read anything that indicated that this Senator Cornyn actually supported violence. It seems like he was commenting on the frustration of those who see the judiciary taking on more power than what they should have.

And why is it that every time some Republican makes a comment that is not well recieved by the Left, they have to go and resign?

Originally posted by Idioteque
Sen. Cornyn essentially excused the actions of Timothy McVeigh as well as all of the recent attacks on Judges. The GOP's war on judges is getting ridiculus. If Sen. Cornyn has any decency he will resign from the Judiciary Committee.

I'm with Darth, you're reading too much into that. I don't see anywhere in that quote where he's excusing the behavior. That being said, his commentary is extremely uninformed, in that the violence in Georgia was by a criminal that didn't want to go to jail and the violence in Chicago was by a kook that was mad that the judge tossed out his malpractice case. In other words, we already know what caused the violence and it had nothing to do with judicial activism.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
And why is it that every time some Republican makes a comment that is not well recieved by the Left, they have to go and resign?

becasue, to them free speech is a one way street. as long as you say things that are not offensive or that are in line with their beliefs then your protected, anything "offensive" or "outrageous" calls for people to resign and apologize profusly

That's amazing. You watch C-SPAN. Everytime I turn it on I get an 80-year old senetor that falls aspleep during his own lecture.

It's interesting that you bring up Timothy McVeigh. I liken his anti-government view to some of the posters on this board.

It's interesting that you bring up Timothy McVeigh. I liken his anti-government view to some of the posters on this board. What a coincidence. I liken his excuse of "the necessity of murdering innocent people to 'effectively' murder bad people" to some of the posters on this board!

I guess thats the difference.
:D

Idioteque - That is a glaring misquote. No matter how much his sincerity seemed lacking in that last sentence you at least have to have the decency to quote him on it. Anything less would be a lie. Do not stoop to the level of those you oppose.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"And, Mr. President, I'm going to make clear that I object to some of the decision-making process that is occurring at the United States Supreme Court today and now. I believe that insofar as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to the increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights. That is a very current problem that this body faces today. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. I mean, why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative?

Of course the difference is that they can throw the rascal -- the rascal out -- and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal -- if they don't like the decisions that we make. But they can't vote against a judge because judges aren't elected. They serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. And, indeed, I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision-making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe. And that is a national tragedy.

And finally, I – 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. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share.

You know, it's ironic, if you look back, as we all have, being students of history in this body, all of us have been elected to other -- to other bodies and other offices and we're all familiar with the founding documents, the declaration of independence, the constitution itself, we're familiar with the federalist papers that were written in an effort to get the constitution ratified in New York state. Well, Alexander Hamilton, apropos of what I want to talk about here, authored a series of essays in the Federalist Papers that opined that the judicial branch would be what he called the -- quote -- "least dangerous branch of government." The "least dangerous branch." He pointed out that the judiciary lacked the power of the executive branch, the white house, for example, and the federal government and the political passions of the legislature. In other words, the congress. Its sole purpose -- that is, the federal judiciary's sole purpose was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the land and in..."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At the vary least he's using murder as a excuse to promote his own agenda. At the most hes saying "kill all the judges and you'll get to vote for them." Dispicable either way, especially considering its was the republicans stirring the corporate media into a frenzy whereby the 'Loyal' public was stired into a frenzy. When you push the uber religious mob mentality quite a few psychos tend to show up. You saw how they got the abortion clinics shut down through "domestic terrorism*".

*Terrorism by definition is domestic. To claim otherwise is hypocracy.

It's funny you'd think that the republicans would be greatful to the judges for putting Bush in office. I mean come on, who really wanted to know who the people wanted to be president anyways? Recount, pfft, the nerve. Everyone knows you gotta plunge fast forward into demockracy to appease Americans short attention spans. We don't even wait to count them all the first time anymore. Gimmie now, gimmie now, gimmie now. I'll bet the networks rake in a ton of advertizing money for those 12 hour crap fests. Shit the opponants dont even wait for all the votes to be counted. Well you know, assuming their actually opponants...

500, how did you know I was referring to you? Must be true then.

BTY Thanks