Within the past month we’ve heard two Republican members of Congress hint that frustration with those still undefined “activist judges” constitutes legitimate cause for violence. Now we get the latest, conservative commentator Edwin Vieira declaring declaring that the murder of Anthony Kennedy would be okay with him. His justification is that Stalin would have agreed with his (Vieira’s) tactics. And what crime did Kennedy commit to deserve this? He asserted that the Constitutional right to privacy does actually exist, and applies to homosexuals.
Folks, I’m worried. The extreme right is no stranger to violence. They’ve attacked abortion clinics dozens of times, known gay hangouts, and of course they reached their culmination (for the moment) in the Oklahoma City bombing. But what worries me most is their mindset. The extreme right are not exactly known for their capacity for independent thought. They believe what their leaders and others in their introverted groups believe, and do what their leaders tell them to do.
Before Oklahoma City, incitements to and suggestions murder and violence were common among both politicians and commentators on the far right. (Remember Jesse Helms’ “He’d better bring a bodyguard” line?) After Oklahoma City, they caught on to the fact that this sort of stuff could bring down bad publicity. The outright death threats pretty much vanished. And that continued for a while, presumably cause the Republicans realized that the country hasn’t been in a pro-terrorism mood lately. But now it’s creeping back into their lexicon.
And that’s why I’m worried. Before 1995, the far right wing commentators told their sheep to turn violent. Some of them did. After 1995 they didn’t demand violence, and the loonies mostly refrained from it. Now they’re back to promoting violence again. Will the sheep listen this time?
Of course we do have the advantage that now, in contrast to 1995, the country in on high alert for terrorism. But while that’s nice to know, it’s no guarantee. There are hundreds of thousands of targets that might be hit, and it only takes a couple wackos to get a good truck bomb going.
I don’t think there’s much tolerance of violence from any mainstream side of American political thought, which is why we don’t see too much of it.
There’s been a lot of overheated and violent rhetoric on the far left as well, especially over the war. Thankfully, most of this is, as it is on the right, just empty talk.
While I’m not sure I buy ITR’s theme that connects OKC with then-current political rhetoric, we do have some current statements in the news that cross a line in discourse:
Tom Delay, GOP majority leader: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, from the floor of the U.S. Senate, “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.”
Gosh, Moto, that’s terrible!
I’m sure you have an example of a sitting US Senator or Congressman wishing death on or excusing violence against someone. Right?
That train is never late in these discussions. It’s the same old blind saw:
“Well, you guys do it too!”
Except I can’t think of any instance where a group of Democrats and liberals got together at a hotel to hold a conference on something as absurb and patently unconstitutional as the one referenced in the OP. Does anyone have any evidence of Democrats holding a meeting to discuss judicial activism and advocating a “final solution” for judges that don’t shut their mouths and be good little boys and girls and do what they’re told? Anyone?
I was referring to the conference mentioned in the article linked to in the OP. Perhaps you could call it a meeting or a seminar instead, that really doesn’t matter. The unconstitutional side (and keep in mind I’m not American so I could be wrong) I believe is the current expressed in the meeting/seminar/conference/whatever of preventing judges from doing their constitutionally mandated jobs.
The meeting itself wasn’t unconstitutional, obviously, but they’re attempting to establish religion in government and attacking the authority of one of the three branches of government.
A distrubing trend, indeed. Anyone advocating violence as a solution to a problem - even if it’s a problem only folks of a particular ideological stripe are able perceive - should be roundly and strongly denounced. This is getting absurd, but perhaps predictable. When one’s ideology is governed by religion, history supplies numerous examples of dire outcomes.
It’s a common misconception that the power of judicial review (ie, the ability to strike down a law as being unconstitutional) is granted to the courts by the constitution. It’s not. That power was established in the early days of the US by a court decision itself, and is pretty well embedded in our governmental system. It just SEEMS like it’s part of the constitution because few if any people question it.
I see nothing wrong with Republicans discussing or even “plotting against” the idea of judicial review. I’d be strongly in favor of putting **some **boundaries on the ability of the judiciary to strike down laws passed by Congress. Calling for violence against judges, though, is way over the line for any politician. It’s unclear to me that any Congresscritter has actually called for violence, but the tone of some of the things said recently doesn’t lend itself to reasoned discourse.
As to the OP, I’m not too worried about right wing terrorism any more than I am about left wing terrorism. Unless these guys want to be lumped in with Osama bin Laden, they have nothing to gain by blowing up another building. Just as the folks who burn effigies of Bush at protests have nothing to gain by actually trying to assisinate Bush. The last few people trying to assisnate presidents were more lunatics than political firebrands.
Fair enough, but I think there is a distinct and defineable difference between burning a poltical figure in effigy, and referring to Stalin’s solution to problematic opponents. One is purely symbolic, the other essentially condones murder. I don’t doubt there are many who would love to see Bush dead (I wouldn’t shed a tear), but these people in that meeting or seminar or whatever were pretty much talking about judges falling in line “or else”. In the linked article it was noted that one judge has already been killed and another’s family was murdered. That’s pretty goddamned serious. I just don’t see that coming from the American left.
Why not? We’ve certainly seen plenty of it in the past-- ie, from various radical left group in the 60s and 70s. The anti-golbalization crowd has its extremist elements, as do the radical environmentalists and animal rights groups. Do you feel uncomfortable with having the Unibomber called a left-wing radical? If so, then you might see why those on the right in this board don’t claim Tim McVeigh as one of their own.
scule, recent none of the violence against judges has been political.
John, do you think citing the Unibomber as a counter example to GOP Senators and Congressmen and their staff urging violence is an “apple to apples” comparison?
Personally I could care less whether the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh is considered right or left or whatever, what I (from a proxy point of view) would be more concerned with is the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of congresspeople and senators and they’re closely affiliated contemporaries surrounding this issue of “judicial activism”.
My point is not that there are only loonies on one side or the other (up here we call those dollars ), but that it seems like those in power, or at the very least close to those in power, are beginning to speak out on issues in a forceful, negative, and potentially harmful way, such that they may not directly advocate violence or terrorism, but that there is an almost implicit undercurrent of cowboy diplomacy in their speech. My fear, if I were an American, would be that the forceful nature of their attitudes and speech cold lead to seriously negative actions, if not by them (most likely not, actually), then by those that closely follow them.
In any case, the minute someone on either side starts screaming about judicial activism I immediately put my sceptic helmet on, since it almost always ends up being someone bitching about a decision they just didn’t like, rather than one that wasn’t right or fair.
As for the violence against the judges mentioned in the article, if squeegee is right then why did they include that in there in that context? Seems rather disingenuous of the author to throw that in, since someone who didn’t know would naturally be lead to relate the two.
Why, is there an epidemic of the courts striking down statutes passed by Congress? I’m not aware of such a problem outside the hyperbolic rants of a few Republican congresspersons and talking heads. If you think there is such an epidemic, please provide a cite.
What is this “3 quotes above” of which you speak? Humor my inability to find the quote, and copy it once again showing us a Congressman who has advocated violence.
), but that it seems like those in power, or at the very least close to those in power, are beginning to speak out on issues in a forceful, negative, and potentially harmful way, such that they may not directly advocate violence or terrorism, but that there is an almost implicit undercurrent of cowboy diplomacy in their speech. My fear, if I were an American, would be that the forceful nature of their attitudes and speech cold lead to seriously negative actions, if not by them (most likely not, actually), then by those that closely follow them.