Tuesday, April 05, 2005

 

Sen Cornyn condoning violence againt Judges?

From the floor of the US Senate: gpo.gov
I make clear I object to some of the decisionmaking process occurring at the U.S. Supreme Court today and now. So far as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights that is a very current problem this body faces. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. Why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision born out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative? The difference is they can throw the rascal out and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal if they do not like the decisions made, but they cannot vote against a judge, because judges are not elected. They serve for a lifetime on the Federal bench.

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; we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. 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 and builds 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.


And on the same day: HONORING POPE JOHN PAUL II -- (Senate - April 04, 2005, Page: S3123). Why include this? In the above comments, Sen Cornyn attacks the SCOTUS for banning the execution of minors. If I recall correctly, the Pope sided with the Supreme Court on this matter.
I am troubled when I read decisions such as Roper v. Simmons...And the United States Supreme Court, on March 1, 2005, held that Christopher Simmons or any other person in the United States of America who is under the age of 18 who commits such a heinous and premeditated and calculated murder cannot be given the death penalty because it violates the U.S. Constitution. Page: S3126
The Senator quotes the late Pope and affirms his agreement:
"O God almighty and merciful, he who sows discord cannot understand You. He who loves violence cannot welcome You. Watch over us in our painful condition, tried by the brutal acts of terrorism and death. Comfort Your children and open our hearts to hope that in our time, we again may know serenity and peace." I can only add my own amen to that prayer. Page: S3123

Comments:
It's like parents with kids. If one parent undermines the authority of the other parent... what is going to happen? the child will get the idea that they don't have to listen to the other parent, and will be rude and obnoxious in doing so. Now, we are not children, and the courts and congress and the president are not our parents, but the idea still makes sense. The two branches of government that have been unable to control the third branch have undermined the authority of the judicial branch, and therefore people who do not like the decisions the judges make will just disregard them and perhaps act out in violence. But how do we fix this?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?