John Cornyn: Judges Asked for their Murder
Apparently there's stiff competition for the claim of Biggest Embarrassment to Texas these days ....
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.
So, according to John Cornyn's logic, judges who are murdered were asking for it because of their activist decisions ... or activist decisions in general ... or whatever. It's "just a concern I have." While "unjustified,"
Josh Marshall has it right:
Let alone the fact that the statement is ridiculous on its face since violence against judges in this country is almost exclusively the work of disgruntled defendents or homicidal maniacs who manage to wrestle a gun away from a bailiff, what Cornyn is trying to suggest here seems genuinely outrageous.
Once more, the politicization of death prevails upon the Republican party and once more, they manage to get it dead wrong. I'd normally be at a loss for words over outright stupidity such as this, but Cornyn's efforts to paper over his own freakin' words are finding a way to do even more damage:
From the Chron:
In response, Cornyn's staff pointed to introductory remarks in which he said that he meant no blanket criticism of the Supreme Court or the rest of the judiciary. Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican presidents.
Earth to Cornyn's PR staffer: How fucking stupid do you think people are? Check the quote your boss just dropped on the Senate:
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 .... [T]he Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "blanket criticism" is ... and if you feel the same way about rationlizing criminal behavior on the part of others.