Just what kind of ignorati are in the Senate?
Senator Cornyn (R-TX) had something pretty puzzling to say on the floor the other day (Apr 4, 2005).
(Video link here, WMV file)
Is he being disingenuous, deliberately making connections and dancing around the justification of "courthouse violence"? Or is he just plain ignorant of recent events? I can think of two instances right off--the man who overpowered his police guard, and the murder of a judge's husband and mother. Both of those were not related in any way to "judicial activism".
He contradicts himself when he says "Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently..."
I suppose one could imply that what *is* new is that the public perception has shifted from just run-of-the-mill courthouse violence and politically motivated courthouse violence.
Now he's issued a rebuttal to those who make the claim that he's justifying the violence, and turning it around and blaming them for taking his quote out of context.
Out of context or not, the above statement contains factual inaccuracies. Nobody seems to be killing judges or their families out of political frustration in the US. I'm not convinced he was actively calling for such violence. But I am leaning towards a belief in manipulation by misinformation. This administration, and especially the so-called "Republican" side of the isle has an increasing track record of doing so. How many people believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way responsible for the tragedy of 9/11?
No, he's not ignorant. He's a twister of words and current events to his political ends. And he's aiming to take over the judiciary.
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. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that’s been on the news 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.
(Video link here, WMV file)
Is he being disingenuous, deliberately making connections and dancing around the justification of "courthouse violence"? Or is he just plain ignorant of recent events? I can think of two instances right off--the man who overpowered his police guard, and the murder of a judge's husband and mother. Both of those were not related in any way to "judicial activism".
He contradicts himself when he says "Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently..."
I suppose one could imply that what *is* new is that the public perception has shifted from just run-of-the-mill courthouse violence and politically motivated courthouse violence.
Now he's issued a rebuttal to those who make the claim that he's justifying the violence, and turning it around and blaming them for taking his quote out of context.
Out of context or not, the above statement contains factual inaccuracies. Nobody seems to be killing judges or their families out of political frustration in the US. I'm not convinced he was actively calling for such violence. But I am leaning towards a belief in manipulation by misinformation. This administration, and especially the so-called "Republican" side of the isle has an increasing track record of doing so. How many people believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way responsible for the tragedy of 9/11?
No, he's not ignorant. He's a twister of words and current events to his political ends. And he's aiming to take over the judiciary.
posted by Jean Dudley at 1:34 PM
<< Home