Cornyn out of context
BeldarBlog
I reproduce here an email I just sent to Profs. Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse based on their two recent posts about Texas Senator John Cornyn's so-called "stirring up hatred against judges":
<<<
Profs. Reynolds & Althouse, with due respect, I think you are buying in wholesale to comments of others who are taking Sen. John Cornyn's comments WAY out of context, and thereby propagating and giving additional credence to a misimpression.
John Cornyn, as you probably know (but may have forgotten) was the Attorney General of Texas and an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court before he was elected to the US Senate. In both of those capacities, he was extremely responsible and well-balanced. As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas, he certainly had no record of encouraging lawlessness. He has no history of demagoguery. Lumping him in with nuts at either the left or right extremes simply isn't justified based on his past record. He's neither a Tom DeLay nor a Robert Byrd. There's no plausible basis to argue based on his own history that by speculating about a possible cause-and-effect link, he's sending a "coded message" approving and endorsing violence against judges.
Prof. Althouse comments (and Prof. Reynolds quotes approvingly) that "t is really a shame how little people understand of the reasons judges decide cases the way they do." With due respect, Prof. Althouse, ex-Justice Cornyn may have a better understanding than you, Prof. Reynolds, or I (judicial clerkships notwithstanding). I don't think you should be so quick to impute to this senator an intent to encourage violence against judges like those among whom he recently sat himself, especially given his own track record of combatting violent crime as a Texas Attorney General.
And in context, Sen. Cornyn's remarks are actually CONSISTENT with your observation, Prof. Althouse. He's not commending or endorsing the people who "understand [little] of the reasons judges decide cases the way they do." But he's certainly commenting on the fact that many people don't understand why judges decide cases the way they do, and observing, admittedly speculatively — with concern and alarm, not approval — that the misunderstandings of some of those people may turn to frustration that could potentially turn to violence. And how does he characterize these hypothetical misunderstandings and actions? As being "certainly without any justification"!
The left half of the blogosphere — including posts you've linked, Prof. Reynolds — are painting Sen. Cornyn's comments as "endorsing violence against state and federal judges." But that's not at all what he actually said, even in the truncated quotes contained in the WaPo article linked by Prof. Althouse.
One can make the argument that judicial activism breaks down public respect for the judiciary, and the further argument that decreased public respect for and increased public frustration with the judiciary might encourage fringe elements to break the law. One can lament that as a potential consequence without endorsing that consequence. One can lament that without encouraging violence. One can indeed condemn violence as an inappropriate solution to the problem; if Sen. Cornyn's comments can be faulted, it's only for failing to condemn violence more strongly than he did. But in fairness, it probably never occurred to him that anyone would misconstrue his comments as being an endorsement of violence against judges.
Neither of you two are suckers. But with due respect, I think you've both been suckered, badly, this time. I urge you to think twice. And read the whole speech — link here ( cornyn.senate.gov ) — which includes statements like this one:
---This is not a blanket condemnation. I hope I have made it clear that I respect the men and women who wear the robe, but having been a judge myself I can state that part of the job of a judge is to criticize the reasoning and the justification for a particular judgment. I certainly did that daily as a state supreme court justice. And I might add that people felt free to criticize my decisions, my reasoning and justification for the judgments I would render. That is part of the give and take that goes into this. I make clear my respect generally for the Federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
---
Then tell me truthfully if you think the WaPo linkage of this speech to Tom DeLay's veiled threat of impeachment-type retaliation against the Schiavo judges is fair, or a cheap shot. I think it's definitely the latter.
Best regards,
- Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar
>>>
Regarding quoting out of context, here's what came immediately before the bit that the WaPo quoted:
<<<
I believe the increasing politicization of the judicial decisionmaking process at the highest levels of our judiciary has bred a lack of respect for some of the people who wear the robe. That is a national tragedy.
>>>
Does describing a "lack of respect for some of the people who wear the robe" as a "[n]ational tragedy" encourage violence against judges?
And here, from the very beginning of the speech:
<<<
Before I start, let me just say I have the greatest respect for our judiciary, the men and women who wear black robes — whether it is on a municipal court or a county court or a district court like I served on in San Antonio, Bexar County, TX, for 6 years, or those who work on appellate courts, whether State or Federal, like I did on the Texas Supreme Court for 7 years.
For 13 years of my professional life, I have worn a black robe, judging cases, first presiding over the jury trials, and coming to have a great deal of respect not just for those judges but for men and women who serve on juries and decide hard cases, cases which, perhaps, they would prefer not have to sit in judgment of, some involving even the death penalty.
I don't want anyone to misunderst[an]d what I am going to say as being a blanket criticism of either the judiciary or the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular. From my own experience, judges, although they have important jobs to do, are no different than you and me. What I mean is they are mere mortals, subject to the same flashes of mediocrity, sometimes making mistakes, and sometimes displaying flights of brilliance. These are not, as some people have suggested, high priests able to discern great truths that you and I are unable to figure out. They are generally very intelligent, with outstanding educational pedigrees, but none of us have agreed that judges, particularly Federal judges, can be or should be a law unto themselves.
>>>
Demagoguery? A call to violence?
Hardly. Actually a damn good speech. But read the whole thing for yourselves, please, before buying into anyone's characterization of it, including mine.
---------------
UPDATE (Tue Apr 5 @ 2:30pm): Argh. Jonah Goldberg's been suckered too.
Doesn't anyone bother to read before blogging anymore? It took me all of ten seconds to find the speech on Cornyn's website and three minutes to read it start to finish. I expect better than this from these folks, frankly. You should too.
Posted by Beldar
beldar.blogs.com
althouse.blogspot.com
instapundit.com
washingtonpost.com
nationalreview.com |
