US Senator rationalizes court violence

[Flatlander]

*Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex):
"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," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
Cornyn continued: "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. . . . 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."

This seems to me to be an attempt by the Republican party to further build on previous statements by Tom DeLay. Is this the beginning of the right's campaign against the judiciary? Is this line of reasoning by Cornyn legitimate?

Has the judiciary overstepped its bounds?





*-Washington Post

 

[Bammx2]

I can't answer for political issues,
but I can say from personal expierience,yes...some judges HAVE overstepped boundries.
I have seen a friend trying to defend himself in an assault case and the judge who was presiding would not hear anything he had to say.The judge DID say"I will allow you to move the case to another district court,but if you decide to have it heard here,today,I WILL put you in jail!"
The case did involve a woman who lied and they had the evidence on CCTV,but the judge refused to hear any of the evidence.
This is not major,but the principle is the same....
I,myself,had to go to traffic court.The arresting officer himself,admitted I was innocent and it was a mistake.....the prosecutor REFUSED to let it go unless I agreed to a lesser charge.
I know of more...but that should be suffecient.
Oh yea...not mention the fact I was picked up on a DUI and found innocent,even with a breathaliser test.....
I had to $485 for a "slow roll through a stop sign"!
They got me!!!
ACK!

 

[qizmoduis]

*Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex):
"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," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
Cornyn continued: "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. . . . 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."

This seems to me to be an attempt by the Republican party to further build on previous statements by Tom DeLay. Is this the beginning of the right's campaign against the judiciary? Is this line of reasoning by Cornyn legitimate?

Has the judiciary overstepped its bounds?





*-Washington Post

The judges involved did their duty as required by the constitutions of FL and the US. The shrill squawks of "activist judges" from the Republicans are just the next step in their long campaign of dismantling the government in favor of a Chinese-style one-party system. Doing away with any dissent or opposition is their ultimate goal. The Constitution is just a dishrag in their eyes; an inconvenient roadblock on their road to power.

 

[ginshun]

The judges involved did their duty as required by the constitutions of FL and the US. The shrill squawks of "activist judges" from the Republicans are just the next step in their long campaign of dismantling the government in favor of a Chinese-style one-party system. Doing away with any dissent or opposition is their ultimate goal. The Constitution is just a dishrag in their eyes; an inconvenient roadblock on their road to power.

Sheesh, calm down a little. Talk about consperousy theory.

This one stuck out:

"The Constitution is just a dishrag in their eyes; an inconvenient roadblock on their road to power"

I would venture to guess, that a whole lot of people think the very same thing about the judges in quesion.


I believe that it is a pretty big stretch to blame recent courtroom violence, on people being mad about judges oversteping there bounds.

That being said, I do think that judges often (and have been more lately) overstep there bounds.

 

[Fortis]

That Texas senator disgusts me. Sheesh, at least try to be a bit more shrewd with your politicizing of an awful act of violence.

 

[Phoenix44]

I think Congress has overstepped its bounds.

 

[Bester]

Since when does understanding, or even respecting the Constitution been a requirement to hold office?

"Who says children have First Amendment rights?" - Sen. Sandy Pappas, Minnesota

 

[davidg553]

Since when does understanding, or even respecting the Constitution been a requirement to hold office?

Good point. One doesn't need to respect or understand the Constitution in order to an swear an oath to defend it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd point out that there is something truly dangerous about what the Republicans are doing: for the first time in my lifetime, they are out-and-out encouraging Americans to have contempt for the law and for courts and for the criminal justice system merely because they don't like the decisions.

The attacks on the Democrats in the Senate for not hopping fast enough, for blocking 10 or 11 out of some 200 or so judicial appointments are the same.

And note, by the way, that a number of the judges attacked are in fact political conservatives, appointed by Republicans in the first place. it seems that they're just not ideological enough for these jerks--of whom the self-appointed head appears to be Tom de Lay.

I am, however, disappointed in Sens. Frist and Hatch. I'd thought that as smart guys with some principles, they'd have the guts to stand up to his party and loonboxes like Michael Savage and the ACLJ--guess not.

 

[Ray]

Since when does understanding, or even respecting the Constitution been a requirement to hold office?

"Who says children have First Amendment rights?" - Sen. Sandy Pappas, Minnesota

Children certainly have {some} rights under the constitutional amendments, but probably not all rights under all amendments. Those under the age of 18 don't have the right to vote - but that's not a first amendment right.

Do they have free excercise of religion? Some don't, but not because of the gov't--because of their parents.

Do they have the right to peaceably assemble? They do if it's not past their bedtime.

They could petition the gov't. Unless elected officials are answering the petition to get publicity, they ignore people who aren't registered to vote (so I've heard).

They have some freedom of speech, but not full freedom.

 

[dubljay]

From the article
Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable

Apparently, this Senator forgot why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. In their duty to interpret the law and the Constitution, judges need to be able to act without fear of POLITICAL accountability.

The way I see this Senator's ranting is that he is upset that judges are making decisions that go against his (party's) agenda. Perhaps this senator (and others as well) should stop complaining about judges going against the current political agenda and see about getting judges placed that will see things from their perspective. Or perhaps they should set policy and law that will guide sitting judges to act in their favor.

From my perspective, his rant boils down to nothing but rhetoric to incite the public to not trust the judicial system (the one government branch that the public holds the most faith in... just ask yourself who do you trust more a Senator, president/govenor, or a judge?), possibly leading to more violence.

Perhaps I read this wrong.... but that’s the way it seems to me.


-Josh

 

[Bester]

I find this seemingly growing trend of our supposedly elected officials willingness to ignore and disregard the law to be rather frightening. In fact, I don't know which is more of a concern. The ignoring or the ignorance.

Can't we fire them all and start clean?

 

[rmcrobertson]

This sort of thing has been developing, I'm afriad, since the Warren Court at least--right-wingers didn't get what they wanted out of that Court, and in some cases felt they'd lost ground, so they started more and more screaming about so-called judicial activism.

Similarly, there's all this yelling now about Democratic filibusters being used to block a few judicial nominations--they ain't getting what they want, so they're demanding that the rules be changed. Similar to that, there's the beautiful move of changing the House ethics rules because the Senate Majority Leader, Tom de Lay (ironic that that should be his name) got censured three times last year for ethics violations.

It is, in fact, not just hypocritical (aren't these the guys who're claiming that we need to go by the strict letter of the law and its traditional interpretation?) but somewhat dangerous.

What they're pushing for, really, is a kangaoo court.

 

[ginshun]

Funy how everybody is yelling all of a sudden about Tom De Lay this and Tom De Lay that. From what I have seen, his "ethics violations" didn't entail anything that half (if not more) of the congress don't do on a regular basis. Not to say that it is right, but why all of a sudden make a big stink about him, and just ignore all the other people doing the same things.

 

[Makalakumu]

Funy how everybody is yelling all of a sudden about Tom De Lay this and Tom De Lay that. From what I have seen, his "ethics violations" didn't entail anything that half (if not more) of the congress don't do on a regular basis. Not to say that it is right, but why all of a sudden make a big stink about him, and just ignore all the other people doing the same things.

One of the things that people are mad about is his connections to Ron Ebersoll. This guy made a living by bilking Native Americans out of casino money and committed outright fraud. Apparently, Mr. De Lay was involved in these scams. And, oh yes, Ebersoll referred to Native Americans as mongrolized trogdolytes...

This is nothing to take lightly.

Sorry, off topic.

upnorthkyosa

 

[rmcrobertson]

...and let's not forget the bit about demanding campaign contributions from companies that wanted to do Federal or Texas business, or the bit about having his re-election campaign committee pay his wife and daughter a half million bucks over the last three years for their--if memory serves--"consultancy," (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) work.

How does this fit the topic? This is one of the main guys who's going after the judiciary, because he's not getting the decisions he wants.

 

[Marginal]

What's more absurd about the inital quote from the honorable senator that kicks this thread off is that he man's talking about the court shooting involving a violent rapist who was in the process of being convicted for being a violent rapist.

I don't think his outrage over bench legislation etc was what motivated the rapist's actions somehow.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3692317,00.html

On the question of who's overstepping the bounds...