Violence against judges

[TexasTiger 12,876]

In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.

"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. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

"Some people" in "some quarters" are the whack-jobs that support folks like this bozo. Call violence against judges what it is-- inexcusable criminal conduct. And what he suggests here would amount to a form of domestic terrorism. He throws in "without any justification" but the implication is that the judges are kinda asking for it. Of course, the recent violence against judges and their families has had nothing to do with the "ideology" of their decisions, but don't let that keep you from using their tragedy to try and make some political point.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Those remarks put him in the same boat as the whacko Cynthia ( Jihad Cindy ) McKinny D- GA .

Absurd, reckless and utterly useless.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"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."

Besides the obvious issues with this guy's diatribe, did anyone catch this? Someone needs to take Remedial Government 101. The courts are not enforcers of laws made by the legislature. That falls to the executive branch. Congress makes laws, the courts interpret the laws in light of our Constitution, the Executive branch "executes" the laws.

I get as frustrated by judges overstepping their constitutional bounds as much as the next guy, but they also aren't just some rubber stamp for whatever the "elected representatives" come up with. This isn't mob rule by proxy.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

"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."

Besides the obvious issues with this guy's diatribe, did anyone catch this? Someone needs to take Remedial Government 101. The courts are not enforcers of laws made by the legislature. That falls to the executive branch. Congress makes laws, the courts interpret the laws in light of our Constitution, the Executive branch "executes" the laws.

I get as frustrated by judges overstepping their constitutional bounds as much as the next guy, but they also aren't just some rubber stamp for whatever the "elected representatives" come up with. This isn't mob rule by proxy.

154129[/snapback]

You're exactly right. People may disagree on what an appropriate interpretation is in a given case, but the interpretation role is unavoidable.

[Auburn85 432]

Some not all judges have become puppets for the ACLU'S agenda

The Atlanta judge didn't deseve to die, but the DA and that court system has been unstable.

The judge agreed to give a woman who killed her five week old baby , 5 years probation. The so called "crime" took place in 98, but didn't get dissolved until a few months ago. The woman has post pardon depression. The DA and the judge agreed that if she got her tubes tied by a certain time, she would avoid a murder charge.

The woman has 7 kids, one is missing. And almost all the children are by different men. She's free now, since the case took 6 years to close.

The courts in California(thanks to the ACLU) declared that THE BOYS SCOUTS is a religious group.

In Washington, a mother overheard her daughter's phone conversation. The daughter's boyfriend was bragging about mugging an elderly woman. The ACLU and the judges declared that since the mother was eavesdropping, it was a violation of the child's privacy.

Backed by the ACLU, in Idaho judges ruled that any young girl can have an abortion without consent of the parent. This means if your daughter is 12 and she gets pregnant, she can have an abortion without your consent or knowing.

I mean, you have to be a certain age to get a tatoo or piercing without parental concent.