Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) gave a speech on the floor of the Senate, and there has been a major uproar over it. The topic was the imperial judiciary and perceived usurpation of legislative and executive responsibilities. Some have felt that he was excusing violence against judges which ocurred as a result of these political rulings.
I stepped into the middle of the discussion earlier today following a link from Instapundit to Joe Gandelman's The Moderate Voice. Since that post Glenn Reynolds has updated several times, including a reference to Beldar's discussion of the topic. As it turns out Beldar and I came to the same conclusion, by reading what was actually said, that Cornyn was not either advocating or excusing violence against judges. I stated in my comment at TMV that I thought Cornyn was wrong about the cause of these violent episodes, but that he was also not tolerant of them. Beldar's is the next comment, and at his site he has a much lengthier post. You see, he actually took the time to read Cornyn's speech. The entire thing.
At TMV there are links to a lot of leap-before-you-look comments from all corners of the 'net. Take a minute to read carefully what Cornyn said, and then see how that's been misinterpreted.
At Instapundit the worm is turning, a little at least. He notes this post at Q and O that reinforces my comment, that the phrase "certainly without any justification" has meaning. Reynolds links to Beldar and his discussion, and this post notes some left sided Cornyn-like speech from the ABA president.
Finally, there's a post where Cornyn clarifies his comments. I read the original remarks and I didn't think they needed all that much clarification, just a little reading comprehension.
UPDATE: 6:20 AM - Similar thoughts from deacon at Power Line, including a consideration of just what he thinks judicial activism means:
Consider Justice Ginsburg. I have no basis for thinking that she is other than thoughtful and erudite. However, she recently stated that U.S. courts should continue to look to foreign law and legal thinking for guidance in part because the way foreigners view America is influenced by what they think about our legal system. In other words, judges should look beyond the law and concern themselves with shaping America's image abroad. Yet if one were to suggest to Ginsburg that the Supreme Court should worry about what Americans think of our legal system, Ginsburg or her admirers would probably consider the suggestion an attack on judicial independence.
From a conservative perspective, the opinions of judges like Ginsburg are serious and thoughtful, but they are based on improper considerations. In that sense, judges like Ginsburg are out of control. Does this mean that they are "frauds." I don't think so, although their opinions sometimes are deceptive. But it does mean that these judges are the political enemies of conservatives, and it also means that the quest to confirm judges who reject their activist approach is probably the most important domestic issue before the Senate.
Hindrocket takes the point further:
Our disagreement with activist judges isn't based only on the fact that they're liberals and we're conservatives. More important, it's based on the fact that our Constitution didn't establish the Supreme Court as a super-legislature, appointed for life, charged with nullifying popular opinion when it conflicts with more "sophisticated" sentiment.
Comments