The Judges Made Them Do It (New York Times Liberals Attack GOP Criticism Of Judicial Tyranny Alert)

New York Times ^ | 04/06/05 | New York Times Editorial

[goldstategop]

t was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared.

It happened on Monday, in a moment that was horrifying even by the rock-bottom standards of the campaign that Republican zealots are conducting against the nation's judiciary. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, rose in the chamber and dared to argue that recent courthouse violence might be explained by distress about judges who "are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public." The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.

Listeners could only cringe at the events behind Mr. Cornyn's fulminating: an Atlanta judge was murdered in his courtroom by a career criminal who wanted only to shoot his way out of a trial, and a Chicago judge's mother and husband were executed by a deranged man who was furious that she had dismissed a wild lawsuit. It was sickening that an elected official would publicly offer these sociopaths as examples of any democratic value, let alone as holders of legitimate concerns about the judiciary.

The need to shield judges from outside threats - including those from elected officials like Senator Cornyn - is a priceless principle of our democracy. Senator Cornyn offered a smarmy proclamation of "great distress" at courthouse thuggery. Then he rationalized it with broadside accusations that judges "make raw political or ideological decisions." He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.

Echoes of the political hijacking of the Terri Schiavo case hung in the air as Mr. Cornyn spoke, just days after the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, vengefully vowed that "the time will come" to make the judges who resisted the Congressional Republicans' gruesome deathbed intrusion "answer for their behavior." Trying to intimidate judges used to be a crime, not a bombastic cudgel for cynical politicians.

The public's hope must be that Senator Cornyn's shameful outburst gives further pause to Senate moderates about the threats of the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, to scrap the filibuster to ensure the confirmation of President Bush's most extremist judicial nominees. Dr. Frist tried to distance himself yesterday from Mr. DeLay's attack on the judiciary. But Dr. Frist must carry the militants' baggage if he is ever to run for president, and he complained yesterday of "a real fire lighted by Democrats around judges over the last few days."

By Democrats? The senator should listen to what's being said on his side of the aisle, if he can bear it.

[goldstategop]

Guess who's circling the wagons in defense of judicial tyranny? The New York Times liberals. The GOP stands guilty of extremism. Republican zealots are conducting a campaign (read: "witch hunt") against the judiciary. And then the NYT rises to a high dudgeon in screeching about the harmful effects of the constitutional option in bringing the President's judicial nominees to a full up or down vote in the Senate. To liberals, judges are Tin Gods above criticism. And the GOP better be sorry if it tries to restore representative government in America.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Pikamax]

"t was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared. "

Actually this is a flat out lie


http://cornyn.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236007

"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 to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted to share. "

He didn't excuse it at all. But the Times will run a correction at the back in small print.

[goldstategop]

They will lie, they will do anything to suggest Republicans have no scruples. Now who were those people who cost Terri Schiavo precious time while they demanded an up or down vote on legislation to give her due process of law? The Democrats are the last people in the world who are entitled to lecture Republicans about respect for the judiciary. The media is as shameless as them in concealing the truth.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[ApplegateRanch]

In the DUmocRat view, "the government" has no business interferring with The Judiciary.

Oddly the Framers seemd to think that the judiciary was part of the government.

As far as I remember (civics class was a few decades ago) all three branches are co-equal, and each has powers over the others.

Guess the boys at the Times went to a different school.

[Ain Soph Aur]

They respect judges as long as the judges agree with them. If they got a judge who respected the Constitution and ruled accordingly, they'd be all over him, screaming about "right-wing judges and their political agendas". It's the new motto of the Democratic Party - "Free Speech for those who agree."

[CyberAnt]

And .. who was the arrogant jackass on the 11th who spent 15 hours writing his screed saying Congress had overstepped their bounds and had no right to tell the courts what they could or couldn't do and that the public was basically a bunch of stupid idiots.

HE WASTED 15 HOURS WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVING TERRI's LIFE. YOU CAN'T GET MUCH MORE ARROGANT THAN THAT!!

[Duke Nukum]

Well, the New York Times has been in favor of starving innocents since Stalin's time.

[MrDem]

NY Slimes Editors, Mr Lincoln has a word for you:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution"

-- Abraham Lincoln (debating Stephen Douglas), 1858

"Evil men, get out of the people's chambers!"

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Yea, the RED STAR Marxist school.

[CyberAnt]

And .. the reason they think the "govt" has no business interferring is because the operation of the govt is not taught in school. They are basically clueless - and that's exactly the way the dems want the public .. because the dems can then mislead them with false information.

[M. Espinola]

The Times editorial room must be plastered with posters of the 'hero', Judge Greer.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution"

-- Abraham Lincoln (debating Stephen Douglas), 1858

GREAT QUOTE BUMP!!

[Recovering_Democrat]

N.Y. TIMES DEFENDS JUDICIAL TYRANNY

In other news,
bachelors are unmarried men,
ocean is salty,
sky is blue,
and bears s--t in the woods.

Film at 11.

[johnmilken]

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution"

How has the Constitution been perverted by the courts? What law did Greer not enforce or twist?

Terri's parents had full access to the courts and to due process. Terri's legal 'guardian' [and I use the word advisedly] was her husband.

[goldstategop]

Nonsense. I do not consider ordering an innocent person starved to death to be within a judge's rightful authority. And then there is Judge Greer's defiance of a federal subpoena - a judge is above the law binding on lesser mortals. Let's not even look at the federal courts' refusal to grant Terri Schiavo's case a de novo review as required by law. So yes, the Constitution and the rule of law were subverted. And the blood of an innocent person was wantonly shed by our government.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[johnmilken]

"I do not consider ordering an innocent person starved to death to be within a judge's rightful authority"
BUT the law evidently does, which is unfortunate, but seems to be the case. As Terri's legal 'guardian', and under Florida law, her husband had the final decision.

Did Jeb Bush or the local sheriff realy have no authority to stop what you claim was an actual [not de facto] crime in progress?

Does that mean a judge can't be arrested or charged for anything?

Don't forget, what we trash now will stay trashed when the next Dem gets in the White House.

We should be focussing on what we can do, what with a mandate, the WH and both houses, i.e. tax reform, Social Security reform, a decent energy policy and curbing abortion. These things are possible and righteous - attacking judges for doing their job isn't on. What next, attacking cops for enforcing laws we don't agree with?

[Marauder]

I just don't see any difference between the NY Times, among others, and Pravda of the former Soviet Union, except that we are still - so far - free to criticize them for their abject stupidity.

[MrDem]

Terri's legal 'guardian' [and I use the word advisedly]

And why is that?

[freedomfiter2]

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution"

Great quote but it's amazing what Mr. Lincoln did to the Constitution just a couple years later. We're still reaping the fruits.

[Noachian]

The amount of constitutional ignorance shown by the editors of the NY Times is staggering, as is the fact that supposedly reasonable people try to get unbiased information from it.