Senator Cornyn says that he was not supporting violence against Judges because of their rulings as his statement has been interpreted (including by me, here).
In his defense he has given a further statement (posted on the his official website), saying that taken in context his statement does not support terrorists. Instead, all he means to say is "We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well. We should all want judges to interpret the law fairly -- not impose their own personal views on the nation."
A transcript of his earlier speech can be found here.
In it he starts out with a very defensive preamble that includes "I don't want anyone to misunderstood what I am going to say as being a blanket criticism of either the judiciary or the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular. [...]
"Federal judges are appointed subject to advice and consent provisions of the Constitution for a lifetime. They do not run for election. They do not have to raise money as do other politicians. I know those who do envy them that. But the idea is they are supposed to use that independence in order to be impartial umpires of the law -- it is called balls and strikes -- and they should use that independence that has been given to them in order to resist politics, in order to resist those who would suggest that in order to be popular you must subscribe to a particular way of thinking or a particular social or political or ideological agenda.
[...]
"Why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision born 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?
[...]
"I believe the increasing politicization of the judicial decisionmaking process at the highest levels of our judiciary has bred a lack of respect for some of the people who wear the robe. That is a national tragedy.
"Finally, 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; we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. 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 to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted to share."
[Underlining mine -- RB]
Sen. Cornyn then goes on to complain that the recent Supreme Court decision that it was cruel and unusual punishment to give killers under age 18 the Death Penalty. His real complaint is that the Supreme Court included references to foreign laws when they made that decision, and he feels that makes our judges into unaccountable policy-makers rather than judges who apply American law and precedent.
In essence the statement blaming the judges for engaging in political policy-making rather than simply applying law as established by the Legislature and by precedent has led to lower respect for the judges themselves. His throw-away line speculating that it may also lead to violence against judges was a real mistake on his part, and there is no way he can avoid blame by saying it was taken out of context.
The fact is, he as a sitting US Senator connects his own ideocentric disapproval of certain Supreme Court decisions with violence against judges. His repeated protestations that others might become violence, but his hands aren't dirty, just doesn't ring true. He is threatening judges that if they don't start making more popular decisions, they might find themselve subject to violence.
Senator Cornyn says he was a judge himself for 13 years. This speech would indicate that he didn't learn much during that time, and I would bet that his decisions are generally pretty poorly written.
No comments:
Post a Comment