HAVING secured the presidency, the legislature and the corporate media, the Republicans have focused their wrath on our nation's judiciary, the last bastion of reason and restraint that stands between right wing crazies and happy fascist fun land.
The latest attack comes from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who jolted possibly hundreds of viewers from their C-SPAN stupor when he suggested that recent acts of violence against judges are a consequence of "judicial activism," which is Republican-speak for "decisions we don't like."
"We seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news," said the senator, adding, "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."
Cornyn's defenders argue that the senator's statement has been unfairly removed from its context, in which he added that violence towards judges is "certainly without justification," but the entirety his floor speech reads as a warning. When the senator ponders, for example, "Why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction?" he encourages contempt for any decision that might conflict with a person's partisan opinion.
Cornyn's remarks echo comments made during the legal battle over the Terri Schiavo case, in which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, blamed judges for her death and warned, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." While neither legislator directly incites violence, they both attempt to construe disagreement with the courts as an understandable motive.
Of course, Cornyn knows perfectly well that recent acts of violence against judges had nothing to do with the perpetrators' views on the ideological basis of judicial decisions. These acts were committed as personal vendettas by madmen, none in response to rulings that even the most determined wingnuts could construe as politically motivated.
One recent victim was Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Chicago, who lost her husband and her mother when Bart Ross, who had appeared in her courtroom, broke into her home and fatally shot them both. Lefkow was targeted not for "legislating from the bench," but for dismissing Ross's medical malpractice suit, a ruling that right wingers should applaud given their distaste for "frivolous lawsuits" that supposedly drive up the cost of malpractice insurance.
In the most recent incident, Judge Rowland Barnes was allegedly shot to death by an accused rapist in an Atlanta courtroom, no doubt in response to his stance on the role of the judicial branch as a check on executive and legislative power.
DeLay and Cornyn's inflammatory statements are not about liberal judges, and they are not about Terri Schiavo's right to life or even gay marriage. Appeals to social conservatism and accusations of ideologically biased rulings serve as convenient covers for their larger goal of redefining the role of the judiciary.The right, taking advantage of the sad state of civic education in this country, has justified their assault on the judicial power by accusing judges of wielding power without the consent of the public. Those familiar with the U.S. Constitution might point out that this is precisely the role of the judiciary: to ensure that laws are enacted and enforced within the bounds of the Constitution, not in response to the whims of a frenzied majority.
While Cornyn laments that judges are "unaccountable to the public," he really means that judges hold power independent of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. These leaders view their elected positions as a mandate to enact a radical agenda without pesky legal constraints, and they prefer not to be checked or balanced, thank you very much.
A number of prominent liberal bloggers have called for Cornyn's resignation, but we should wish for more like him in Congress. At least Sen. Cornyn has the testicular fortitude (or the political ineptitude) to be explicit about his party's view of the judiciary, while his colleagues disguise their partisan power plays as (oh, irony) a defense against partisan rulings.
In Chicago, a judge lost her husband and her mother because she dismissed a civil lawsuit. In Atlanta, a judge is dead because he presided over a rapist's constitutionally guaranteed day in court. And in Washington, D.C., a member of the United States Congress just implied that they were asking for it.
Cari Lynn Hennessy is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 3 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
