The Politics of Violence
by TChris
With armed vigilantes making headlines, it may not be surprising that right-wing politicians find it understandable that judges who disagree with their extreme views might become targets of violence. Not surprising, but still shocking.
Earlier this week, TalkLeft called attention to Senator Cornyn's distressing claim that courthouse violence is caused by frustration with activist judges.
The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.
As the New York Times editorially opines today, "when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared."
He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.
Cornyn's message to judges: you're responsible for your own death if you rule in a way that displeases a right-wing lunatic. Is Senator Cornyn entirely sane?
Tom DeLay's threat -- the other to which the Times editorial adverts -- was at least a bit more veiled: he predicted that "the time will come" when judges will "answer for their behavior." Will the time come when voters expect politicians to answer for their incendiary comments?
| < More Scrutiny of Tom DeLay | Student Teaches School About Constitution > |
