Sen. Cornyn: Judicial activism incited judical murders

[RTFirefly]

Transcript of Sen. Cornyn’s remarks on the Senate floor, at approximately 5pm this afternoon, courtesy of Ameriblog:

…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…

Can we impeach U.S. Senators? If so, can we institute proceedings against this slug, so we can let him slither back under whatever rock he emerged from?

Rep. John Conyers said it all:

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.

[Ms2001]

Funny how some people seem to think judges just appear on the bench by magic, with no input at all from the voters, and can never be impeached.

[RTFirefly]

WaPo story, just to add one more cite.

[SteveG1]

So this shitbag is upset because all of the courts dared to defy his will. It is a thinly veiled threat to make these “activists” follow orders, somehow, and to trash the constitution and government in order to do it. It also blindly ignores the idea that just maybe, most of the country agrees with all the state and federal judges decision, or that they just maybe were following the law as it is written. Then he says that these judges brought violence on themselves and there may be more if they do not “obey”.

Sorry, but if any of the judges are anything like me, the surest way to turn them against you is to make threats and pull the “are you with us or against us” crap.

Are scumbags like this senator the same right wing conservatives that we supposed liberals and sometimes Democrats are supposed to make nice with? Are these the people we need to be more like, to win elections? Is there any middle ground where we could possibly reach any agreement or compromise with?

Not just no, but HELL NO.

[cckerberos]

@Mr2001

Funny how some people seem to think judges just appear on the bench by magic, with no input at all from the voters, and can never be impeached.

Not to hijack this, but in a number of places there is no input at all from the voters. Personally, I find the idea of voting for judges to be bizarre.

[Ms2001]

@cckerberos

Not to hijack this, but in a number of places there is no input at all from the voters.

Sure there is, just not directly. The judges may be appointed, but who appoints them? An elected official - the President, in the case of the Supreme Court. When you vote for a president, you have to consider what kind of judges he might appoint, just as you’d consider which bills he might veto, who he’d pick to head various agencies, etc.

[Campion]

You know, it’s ironic, if you look back, as we all have, being students of history in this body . . .

Ironic indeed. Get thee back to thy books, young man. There are lessons still to be had. Such as, for example, you and your senatorial brethren and sistren confirmed all the federal judges at issue? Oh, perhaps they were put on the bench before you got to the Hill, but the legislative branch has already had their say on the issue of judges.

This is one of the most stunning abdications of personal responsibility: who wrote the laws interpreted by the courts? The Legislature. So, Senator Cornryn, if you should be looking to oust anyone for not doing their job, grab a mirror.

[Elysian]

@Sen. Scumbag

…and the political passions of the legislature…

He denies the requirements of the Constitution in the same breath that he says that he has political passions/ambitions. He calls for circumscribing the power of the judicial branch while extolling his greed for more power. He can’t even see his own hypocrisy.

I was listening to Air America this morning and they called these congressmen, led by DeLay and cronies, traitors. Traitors! I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I can certainly understand the sentiments behind the insult.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Elysian

I was listening to Air America this morning and they called these congressmen, led by DeLay and cronies, traitors. Traitors! I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I can certainly understand the sentiments behind the insult.

I say it’s about time those crapulous scoundrels got a taste of their own medicine.

[Reeder]

In NC…state judges are elected. Supreme court too.

[carlb]

If they’re so pissed off, they should just start impeachment proceedings. Then the public gets to see what asshats these clowns really are. Sen. Cornyn, if you think these, “activist judges,” (gods, I’m getting sick of that term) are not fulfilling their duties, impeach them.

What? Oh, they haven’t actually done anything impeachable? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP! Or, at least have the decency to say what’s really on your mind. “Waaahhhh! The judges aren’t letting us do whatever the hell we want! They’re making us abide by the Constitution! Waaahhh!”

Dipshits.

[Ravenman]

Gee… if there was only some way that US Senators could make sure that the judges appointed to lifetime seats were well qualified, as opposed to simply being of the same political party as the one which controls the White House and the Senate… Yes, I’m think I’m on to something here. If only a handful of Senators, who might even comprise a political minority, could hold up these judges before they were appointed, that might convince a President to nominate better qualified judges… Maybe even by insisting on a lengthy debate on whether a judge has the right temprament for the job…

Nah, that’ll never work. Not in John Cornyn’s U.S. Senate!!

[bizzwire]

“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.”

Chief Justice Rhenquist: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Stevens: Nominated by Gerald Ford
Associate Justice O’connor: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Scalia: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Kennedy: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Souter: Nominated by George Bush (Sr.)
Associate Justice Thomas: Nominated by George Bush (Sr.)
Associate Justice Bader-Ginsburg: Nominated by Bill Clinton
Associate Justice Breyer: Nominated by Bill Clinton

Damn those Democrats for packing the Supreme court with their commie, vegetarian, godless, homo-loving, judicial activist judges!!!

[minty_green]

FWIW, John Cornyn did one of the gutsiest things I’ve ever seen (well, read about) a Texas Attorney General do. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the absolute worst appellate court in the nation, bar none) ruled that it was okay for the prosecution to present testimony that a capital murder defendant was more likely to pose a continuing threat to society since he was Hispanic – the prosecutor’s witness had statistics and stuff to back it up – because the defense attorney failed to object, Cornyn went to the U.S. Supreme Court and confessed error. That is, he stood in front of the supreme arbiters of the law of the (federal) land and said the highest (criminal) court of his state had fucked it up.

The CCA did not like that at all when the Supreme Court remanded the case to them. They were (based on personal observation) fucking brutal to Cornyn, challenging his authority (as the chief advocate of the state, an elected position, mind you) to say that they were in clear error. They roughed him up on the subsequent opinion, affirming the previous decision and bitch-slapping him for daring to conclude otherwise.

I also know people who knew Cornyn during his service on the Texas Supreme Court (a generally good court, quite unlike the completely separate CCA), who testify to Justice Cornyn’s moderation and thoughtfulness.

Having said all that, his statements since being elected to the Senate are appalling. This one is atrocious. Apologize quickly, Senator.

[brianjedi]

@carlb

If they’re so pissed off, they should just start impeachment proceedings. Then the public gets to see what asshats these clowns really are. Sen. Cornyn, if you think these, “activist judges,” (gods, I’m getting sick of that term) are not fulfilling their duties, impeach them.

If, like me, you’re sick of hearing “activist judges,” then don’t use the term. It’s a meaningless term to begin with, since all judges are inherently activist, as it is their job to determine not only what the law says but what it means.

I’m not surprised that statements like this are still being made, since DeLay was saying the same things the other day. It’s obvious that members of the GOP are attempting to protect and expand their power by subjugating the judicial branch. The problem is that there’s not a federal judge in the land that won’t fight back if Congress starts trying to meddle in affairs it has no business being in.

[Blalron]

@minty green

FWIW, John Cornyn did one of the gutsiest things I’ve ever seen (well, read about) a Texas Attorney General do. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the absolute worst appellate court in the nation, bar none) ruled that it was okay for the prosecution to present testimony that a capital murder defendant was more likely to pose a continuing threat to society since he was Hispanic – the prosecutor’s witness had statistics and stuff to back it up – because the defense attorney failed to object, Cornyn went to the U.S. Supreme Court and confessed error. That is, he stood in front of the supreme arbiters of the law of the (federal) land and said the highest (criminal) court of his state had fucked it up.

Could you give me a cite on that case?

[elucidator]

Beginning to think the activist judge meme is their last excuse for the Fundy wing that has been so loyal and supportive, subsisting year after year on promises to turn back the clock to a more wholesome America. Somehow they have to come up with a plausible scenario. With all the reins of power in the hands of the Righteous, how is it, then, that the dastardly liberals can thwart God’s Will?

But this guy…its like the Texas delegations caught wind of the Oklahoma Senator talking about predatory lesbian stalkers in the junior high schools, and thought, jeez, a Texan legislator is not currently the biggest douchebag! The balance of nature is off, rips in the fabric of space-time, stuff like that. So Tom DeLay (R-Undead) and Sen. Cornhole swung into action.

Where is it written that these guys always gotta be Texans!?

[Blalron]

Judicial Activism is starting to become a meaningless phrase. It’s being twisted to mean “any judicial decision I disagree with”

[GrizzRich]

@bizzwire

Chief Justice Rhenquist: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Stevens: Nominated by Gerald Ford
Associate Justice O’connor: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Scalia: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Kennedy: Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Associate Justice Souter: Nominated by George Bush (Sr.)
Associate Justice Thomas: Nominated by George Bush (Sr.)
Associate Justice Bader-Ginsburg: Nominated by Bill Clinton
Associate Justice Breyer: Nominated by Bill Clinton

Damn those Democrats for packing the Supreme court with their commie, vegetarian, godless, homo-loving, judicial activist judges!!!

I can’t decide if our dear Doper bizzwire has mis-counted or if I’m being whooshed.

[danceswithcats]

Sadly, I’ve been noting the practice of litmus testing judicial candidates with disdain for some time. As mentioned in the quote within the OP, Hamilton had the sound idea that the judicial branch would simply interpret and apply the law. When persons are subject to disclosing their personal bias and appointed based thereon, the blindfold has slipped, IMHO, and both sides of the aisle, red and blue staters are the less therefore.