Mayhap, but only one side’s brought guns to this particular fight; as Mr. Moto notes, the other side has brought only pies and salad dressing.
I’m going to briefly turn the floor over to another commentator, a kid half my age named Matt Yglesias:
He also draws a rather interesting analogy to the combination of abortion clinic protests and shootings of abortion doctors that’s worth reading the rest of the piece for.
Sure: Law.com
Well, the “input” from the voters is at one remove for federal judges. The President nominates and the Senate confirms them. The public has no direct input to this process. Of course, people may make their wishes known, but it’s hardly the same as an election, where the people may directly vote on the selection of a person for an office.
Quite frankly, if the legislators are fed up with activist judges, they could more often write their laws more narrowly and with a bit more specificity, rather than leaving wide areas open to interpretation of intent by the judicial branch. And I wonder, is congress equally upset with the “activist” executive? Just as the manner in which the legislature (at all levels) writes law leaves aspects of it open to interpretation by judges, many laws are enforced solely by the executive bureaucracy - and they’re equally “activist.”
Cornyn seems to be crying about his own, and that of his colleagues, failure.
I don’t know. I tend to think Cornyn harbors fantasies of walking into the CCA with a nine millimeter and popping caps in those asses. So in that sense his statement is a bit more understandable. I think he may be projecting what would motivate him onto the actual court shooters.
Enjoy,
Steven
I certainly wouldn’t call Delay, Conyers, and the rest of those trying to pull down the judicial branch in order to achieve their goal of a Chinese-style, one-party state “traitors.” Treason has a very specific definition in the Constitution, and none of this comes close to it, just as speaking out and protesting in opposition to the Iraq war doesn’t come close to it.
Since they have come out in opposition to the Constitution and are calling for the destruction of checks and balances in favor of dictatorial rule, I will call them anti-American and ask why they hate the American Consitution so much.
It is because they take a sworn oath, on The Holy Book Of All Righteous Tasty Goodness (Bible) to defend and uphold the Constitution. So if “traitor” doesn’t set well, let’s call them Oathbreakers instead. There was a time when that in and of itself was a serious situation.
Yeah, “traitors” is not le mot juste. “Terrorists” is closer.
huh.
less’ see. Most recent judicial murders involved the judge who’s family was murdered by a guy who’d lost in her courtroom on a matter of law, where she had orginally sided w/him but a higher court overruled her.
the other was a criminal matter that was just going to trial.
now, where again was the ‘judcial activism’ involved in those cases?
You do have to include all threats, however vague, against the judges who “ordered the execution of Terri Schiavo”.
Both, I think.
Saying, in the wake of these shootings, that government officials may have it coming to them just for doing their job as best they see it, is condoning terrorism.
Openly endorsing armed violence against one’s government would make one a traitor. Implicitly doing so…well, I can’t see why one should draw the line between ‘implicitly’ and ‘openly’.
quote referred to ‘courtroom violence’. I would think it would be more accurate to examine those cases where violence had acctually occurred, vs. where threats may have been made.
Now I’m not sure if I’m being whooshed. There are nine justices on the Court and bizzwire has them all listed. One nitpick though is that while Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan, he was appointed to the Court itself by Richard Nixon.
Which changes the point not at all, but accuracy in all things…
The count’s about right, though Rehnquist was nominated to the surpeme court by Nixon, Regan just nominated him as Cheif Justice.
Just wanted to say, showed this to my (few) co-workers, and an impromptu round of applause started. Well spoken. I give it a 9.8 
Whaddaya mean, “starting to”? It was a meaningless phrase the moment it was first uttered (probably by a right-wing talk-radio insta-pundit, I’d wager).
As for the OP, assuming that Sentaor Cornyn is referring to the Terri Schiavo case in his threat, someone should point him to this breakdown of the judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, asSalon did:
Insert your own rant against those evil activist conservative justices here, Senator.
Wow, thanks. I’m usually just a lurker in the Pit, but this particular story hit me at just the right time of day, in just the right mood, to prompt a bit of writing. I’m trying to harness this rage and send some letters to our Senators and Reps to see if they can’t rein in a few of the more egregious examples of asshattery.
What was that Albert Brooks movie where William Hurt (?) is a blithering idiot who becomes a high-caliber anchorman because of his ability to cry on demand? There was a scene where Brooks is calling him on being a vacuous phoney:
Albert Brooks character: “So, you can name all 12 Supreme Court Justices?”
William Hurt Character: (offended) “Of course I can!”
Albert Brooks Character: “There are only 9 Justices…”
Extra points to all who caught me out on the Nixon/Reagan thing…
It was Broadcast News.
What Cornyn said was intemperate in the extreme, no better than an incitement to riot.
Incidentally, Cornyn pissed off a lot of right wingers with this rhetoric, not just me. As an example, National Review authors posting here haven’t been sympathetic.
I hope he apologizes for this, and pronto.