| The statement has already
prompted some bloggers to call on Cornyn to resign,
considering the recent assassination of a federal judge’s
family and threats made against judges in the Terri
Schiavo case. Some have taken the statement, which follows,
to suggest judges deserve any violence that comes as
a result of “unaccountability.”
Members of the Democratic staff are shooting the phrase
all over Washington, RAW STORY has learned, some of
which are titled, “Did he really just say that?”
The statement?
“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,” Sen. Cornyn
said. “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.”
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a vocal progressive member
in the House, quickly called on Cornyn to retract the
statement.
“This apparent effort to rationalize violence
against judges is deplorable,” Conyers wrote on
his blog. “On its face, while it contains doubletalk
that simultaneously offers a justification for such
violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core
of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow
brought this violence on themselves. This also carries
an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the
far right wants them to do (thus becoming the “judicial
activists” the far right claims to deplore), the
violence may well continue.”
“If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say,
it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our
leaders,” he added. “There is no excuse,
no excuse, for a member of Congress to take our discourse
to this ugly and dangerous extreme.”
“To my Republican colleagues,” Conyers
continued, “You are playing with fire, you are
playing with lives, and you must stop.”
#
Transcript: John Cornyn, 4:54 EST:
…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.
And no one, including those judges, including the judges
on the United States Supreme Court, should be surprised
if one of us stands up and objects.
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…
|
|
