Saying dumb things
I do it all the time and am about to do more of it. Now, this, uhm, well, you make the call:
Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.
In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) — a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee — said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
First of all, none of the recent cases were the result of some citizen disgruntled with some issue taking it out on a judge. One case was a nutjob who didn’t want to go to jail for raping a woman. The other case didn’t even involve shooting a judge. In addition to Cornyn’s claim being irresponsible, it’s also total bullshit.
Lefty blogs are all aflutter at the asininity of the statement. They should be. Insty chimes in with:
“THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IN CONGRESS, that I wonder if it might not lead some people to want to lynch Senators in the majority?”
An irresponsible statement. So how come Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said pretty much the same thing about violence against judges?
Gandelman has a good round up of reactions and he notes that:
Sen. Cornyn has now seemingly given a perfect mental fig leaf for every nut on the right OR ON THE LEFT who wants to physically take out a judge (or the judge’s family) with whom he or she disagrees.
Now, here’s where I out myself as a nutjob, more like a nutjob-lite. Some aspects of our government do seem to be getting out of control. The Supreme Court is utterly useless and is merely a shill for the powers that be. It doesn’t serve the people or the law. If it did, they’d stand up against abuses that go against the fourth amendment. They’d have smacked down the abysmal campaign finance reform. They’d have gone to bat for the second amendment when the assault weapons ban was challenged (or, Hell, if they’d agree to hear any gun case and make a decision one way or another). The wouldn’t have refused to hear a variety of cases that impact civil liberties. All it takes is five hands and we’re fucked.
Congress, now dominated by what was supposedly the party of smaller government, is worse. The jackpot congress and the president, who hasn’t vetoed anything ever that I can recall, go on their merry way spending our money, involving themselves in things they shouldn’t be involved in, and growing the government to the biggest it has ever been. Ever. Meanwhile, we the people are only concerned about important issues, like dudes kissing and Britney’s big ass.
Still, that doesn’t mean you go killing judges. Or congressmonkies. Or presidents. Like Claire Wolfe said:
America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
I don’t advocate shooting or killing anyone. But I do advocate kicking their asses. Ginsburg needs to be smacked repeatedly about the head and neck area. Bush needs a wedgie. Frist needs to be kicked in the nuts. Sure, I’m kidding but our civil and public servants need to be taken down a peg or two. They really do. But that doesn’t mean you kill them. I don’t really have a method for bringing them down a peg. Can we bring back tarring and feathering?
Per insty, Cornyn has clarified and stated his speech was taken out of context. Additionally, Cornyn notes:
My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well.
The judiciary needs to work on getting the respect back. It gets that by serving the American people well. It doesn’t need respect to start serving us well. No branch of government currently serves the people well. Something needs to be done to hold them accountable. Vote them out. Impeach them. We need to do something.
Or I’ll bring the feathers.
April 6th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I will bring the beer.
April 6th, 2005 at 10:27 am
I hate to say it but the monster of big government is here to stay. With the size comes power, and like money they will not give up either. I agree that they are not serving us, and they never will. They serve themselves. If we are to ever gain control of the monster we need to start with a resolution ending campaign finance reform. Until those with money and power stop controlling our political decisions, we the people are left out in the cold.
I have often wondered if a Libertarian were to take the presidency, would they too submit to power and corruption for their own personal and political gain? or would they really shake things up and end unnecessary government funded programs, apply sensible tax laws, reduce government spending, and get things on a more sensible path for America’s future?
April 6th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Instapundit’s clipped quotation of the original speech is misleading, and a borderline dowdification. You are right of course that Cornyn’s statement is bullshit on a factual level (these particular acts of violence have nothing to do with judicial activism), but contrary to Instapundit’s innuendo (and, I presume, that of most of the lefty bloggers who are predictably up in arms), it cannot be reasonably interpreted as condoning violence under any circumstances. One particular phrase he puppyblended out was “Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.”
April 6th, 2005 at 11:04 am
I’m happy to have a senator who acknowledges that there is ANY problem at all. Usually they want to talk about BS.
Maybe Cornyn read some of my emails.
More likely its the accelleration of the RATE of Government intrusion, cost and power that is finally flipping a few alarms.
Every day we get the choice between slavery and rebellion. So far, everyone pretty OK with slavery.
April 6th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
The problem is how do you judge the job that the judiciary is doing? It certainly can’t be any sort of popularity contest; that defeats the whole purpose of having a judiciary. History is generally what decides that.
As far as “congresscritters” and so forth, I’m warming up to the idea of term limits, although there are plenty of cons to that, too.
I’ve often wondered if it would help if you decentralized congress; use teleconferencing for congressional sessions or meetings, so that all the representatives are meeting from their home constituencies rather than all in person inside the beltway. Representatives and Senators should be chummy with their constituents, not with each other.