Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): Violence against judges is political - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 04-04-2005, 05:51 PM

The Republicans crank their "attack-the-judiciary" talk up one more notch. This fits very nicely alongside Tom DeLay's warning that judges will pay the price for what they've done. Wonder what'll be the next inflammatory Republican comment against judges?

Quote:

"And finally, I – 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. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000046.htm

NCB · 04-04-2005, 06:03 PM

BTW, the last courthouse attack was brought out by a black man accused of rape. Hardly a rightwing operative.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-04-2005, 06:36 PM

There is a good point laid out there. A large segment of the population, myself included to a lesser extent, don't like what some judges have been doing in the country. I'm sure that "liberals" here feel the same way sometimes, judges on either side of the spectrum have the ability to dictate law, which over steps their purpose of interpretation. I don't think Delay is wrong for saying that he can/will go after their bench, that is something that is allowed by the constitution. Just because you are judge you don't have a get out of jail free card, they may not be accountable to the general population, but they can be held accountable to the Congress. It is completely legit if people rally and push THEIR REPRESENTATIVES do something about it, that's why it is allowed in the constitution. For the record I don't advocate violence against judges, nor do I think John Cornyn does either, he just said something that was mildy retarded.

CShine · 04-04-2005, 06:39 PM

Found a different article which goes into more depth.

Quote:

Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable. In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "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."

Cornyn continued: "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. . . . 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. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. DeLay (R-Tex.) rebuked federal and state judges who had ruled in the Schiavo case, saying, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said last night that Cornyn, "like Tom DeLay, should know better. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the senator's remarks "an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are 'unaccountable' to the public."

Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart declined to speculate on what instances of violence the senator had in mind. "He was talking about things that have come up and concerned him," Stewart said.

In his speech, Cornyn criticized the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on March 1 that said it is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. "In so holding," Cornyn said, "the U.S. Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to leave this in the hands of jurors. We do not trust jurors. We are no longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the people of the respective states."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr4.html

Painted · 04-04-2005, 06:40 PM

People don't like going to prison. They don't like it one bit.

pan6467 · 04-04-2005, 07:45 PM

Let's see, a judge says abortion is wrong, the right will love him and claim how he is a great judge...... the left condemns him

A judge approves abortion he is a leftist and needs to be taken off the bench..... the left loves him

A judge makes a ruling saying concealed weapons are ok.... the left hates him the right again loves the man

A judge decrees concealed weapons as illegal ...... the right wants him disbenched and the left love him....

Seems to me that whenever a ruling doesn't go one side's way they cry foul and claim the courts have overstepped boundaries.

Personally, these judges are human and they have the job to interpret the laws as they see fit. I do not honestly believe that judges are perfect but I do believe that they do the best job possible, in most cases.

To condemn these people who have made lifetimes of studying laws and learning to interpret them to the best of their ability is wrong.

It's one of the problems though that exists in our system. The party in chrage wants all the judges to be on their page. When this is not possible they will do all they can to discredit said judge and claim he is a problem to society because he does not interpret the laws the way the party in control so desires.

My opinion this is a very slippery slope we enter if we allow the controlling party to be able to hurt the judges abilities to rule on cases. Sure, the GOP will run roughshod now, but when the Dems return to power, the Dems then will be able to do so.

It is vital to our country and part of what has made this country great, that the minority and the dissenters have a voice and power in some way. To weaken the courts at this time would be a huge mistake and would give credence to leftists that believe the right is out for total control and will squash anyone that stands in their way.

Locobot · 04-05-2005, 01:16 AM

Wow, what an ass. The judge in Chicago returned to work the day after her family was slain and this Cornyn thinks he can intimidate judges with a speech before an empty congress chamber.

Redlemon · 04-05-2005, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Wow, what an ass. The judge in Chicago returned to work the day after her family was slain and this Cornyn thinks he can intimidate judges with a speech before an empty congress chamber.

Agreed, he is an ass; however, it is nearly always an empty congress chamber. The congressmen are speaking to (a) the cameras and (b) the transcripts.

martinguerre · 04-05-2005, 06:16 AM

gross...there are plenty of ways of advocating a different balance of power between branches that don't involve thinly veiled threats.

roachboy · 04-05-2005, 09:33 AM

i understand the viewpoint that pan6467 lays out above and to a certain extent agree with his position...but i wonder what the deeper motives behind the conservatvie attacks on the judiciary really are. their critiques at the level of theory seems absurd: the "strict construction" school is a joke conceptually and functionally little more than the pretext for making networks for the social advancement of young reactionary attornies, who otherwise might find that their mediocrity woudl impede theiur career advancement. what is more, it seems that the premises of strict construction--"what would the founders think"?--a thinly veiled "what would jesus do?"---does nto realyl corss with or explain the nature and goals behind these attacks. so what do conservative ideologues want from the judiciary?

here's what it looks like:
conservatives oppose the "big state"--which they claim is a function of their views on matters fiscal--but which seems to me about reducing the role of the public in shaping the affairs of capitalism. it seems to me mostly about an effort to make capitalism private legally and thereby making it unaccoutnable to anyone except maybe shareholders. i suppose there is a universe in which this ambition is rational--but then there is a universe in which dune seems like a good film.
from this viewpoint, one could at least explain the attacks on the judiciary as such, rather than on particular aspects of the judiciary.

another possibility is the nature of appointments to the bench, which i guess seem like giving judges tenure, which the right also opposes, allegedly on principle, but i suspect in fact to speed the plow of purges on political grounds, should the right ever gain hegemony.

in short, i do not beleive the explanations given for this tack in rightwing ideology--if i did, i would simply echo some aspects of pan's post, which seems reasonable if you accept what the right machine says as reflecting what is really going on (which would make these statements an exception to the rule particular to that machinery).

so what do you think is really going on behind the thick veil of conservative rhetoric?

kutulu · 04-05-2005, 10:03 AM

I'm so sick of the 'activist judges' label that's being thrown around. It's a bunch of bullshit whining by a party that is upset that their laws are constantly being declared unconstitutional becuase they are in fact, unconstitutional.

Why can't the public get it into their heads that it is the politicians that are the activists? It's the politicians that have to go out and rally people to their causes.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2005, 11:43 AM

So I suppose that courts like the 9th circuit, who in recent years past have held rates of up to 75% of their decisions being overturned, I suppose that they aren't activist.

roachboy · 04-05-2005, 11:55 AM

i suspect that you understand "activitist" as a term that designates judge with whom you disagree politically, mojo.

but the latest turns in far right land seem to render even that understanding of the term moot.
so now, at the hands of such wunderkind as cornyn, the term seems to refer, if to anything, to the requirement that all judges in all situations conform precisely to the desires of the far right.

if they do not, then they--well what?--face the possibility of idiots like delay and cornyn claiming that violence against judges is a form of legitimate political expression--
(a claim that self-evidently would only obtain with reference to actions carried out by the far right)
from which one can concluce that these people--who are as horrifying as this is, in positions of authority--are advocating something like a putsch (or series of putsches) directed against the judiciary.

and why not?
it worked in early 1930s germany--why not here now?

quite a fine bunch you carry water for, mojo.

Superbelt · 04-05-2005, 12:03 PM

The 9th circuit does not have 75% of thier decision overturned. They ARE NOT ACTIVIST.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ht=9th+circuit
Almost a year ago. I know you were around for this thread. And if you actually never saw it, I quoted it to you recently when you said the same thing.

In short.

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt/The 9th circuit is much maligned by the far right as an "activist" panel of judges who somehow are able to write laws. They say that this court is out of step with the rest of America.

in 2001 the 9th circuit saw 10,372 of these only 14 were overturned. That is a rate of 1.35 overturns per thousand.

The 9th circuit is the largest in america. Largest by far. The next closest in size is the 4th circuit. Widely known as a very conservative panel.

the 4th circuit saw 5,078 cases in 2001 7 were overturned by the Supreme Court. That is a rate of 1.38 per thousand. The 4th circuit, the second largest in america is half the size of the 9th circuit

So to review.

9th - 10372/14
4th -- 5078/7

The 9th has a lower correction rate in regards to all the cases it sees.

http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

Go to the link, see the map. Compare it to the 4th. Remember that California alone has 1/8th of the US population.

Instead of bitching about a court that sees twice as many cases as the next largest, why not bitch about a court that actually gets overturned in higher percentages, by the SC, than the 9th?

I'd like to know where you got "rates of up to 75% of their decisions being overturned"
When the truth is 1.35/1000, That is truly a figure that is yanked out of thine ass.

And if your 75% figure means 'of cases the SC chooses to hear' of course they have a high turnover rate. The SC takes cases on a pick and choose basis on ones they see likely to make an example out of. EVERY CIRCUIT has the same percentage of overturns per SC review.

stevo · 04-05-2005, 12:04 PM

so roach, I suspect you are in favor of judges using foreign laws as a basis for interpreting the US constitution?

Superbelt · 04-05-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

so roach, I suspect you are in favor of judges using foreign laws as a basis for interpreting the US constitution?

Why not? If it has good reasoning behind it. The international consensus of an issue should be taken into account. We are not and should not be an isolationist nation that tries to blind itself to conditions in nations around them.
They are our peers and our allies. We should care what they think. Courts around the world, likewise, often turn to decisions by our own SC to formulate their own opinions. It's not a one way circuit.

martinguerre · 04-05-2005, 12:08 PM

*nods

75% would have really been a pretty shocking and revealing figure.

I suppose it still is, just in a different way. Good work on the numbers, superbelt.

Locobot · 04-05-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So I suppose that courts like the 9th circuit, who in recent years past have held rates of up to 75% of their decisions being overturned, I suppose that they aren't activist.

So then if the Supreme Court has 0% of their rulings overturned they are incapable of being "activist?" There is no such thing as an "activist judge" it's not a definable label, its something politicians whine when they realize their power is checked in our government.

RB-Suprised to see you pick on Dune-yes it's pretty horrible-but if you've read the book and can see Lynch's touches it's not so bad. Most of the complaints about this film are blatently anti-intellectual (they passed out vocab cards in the theater), not a tack you typically take. The spice-oil symbolism is still fairly pertinant.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, as shown by statistics compiled by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the High Court’s recently completed October Term, 2002, proved to be no exception to the 9th Circuit’s disfavored place amongst the justices.

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

The federal courts of appeal decide roughly 30,000 cases per year, as reported in statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Of these, the 9th Circuit decides roughly 17%, making it by far the busiest and largest appellate court. But even more surprising than the frequency and number of cases before the 9th Circuit is the frequency with which the U.S. Supreme Court reviews decisions issued by that particular federal appellate court.

Many legal experts attribute the High Court’s frequent review of 9th Circuit decisions to that court’s staggering size — with a full complement of 28 judges, the 9th Circuit has more judges than any other federal appellate court and exercises jurisdiction over California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. But if the 9th Circuit’s gigantic caseload is to explain away its record in the U.S. Supreme Court, then the frequency of review and reversal should at least correspond to its size and the percentage of federal appellate cases it hears. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Although the 9th Circuit’s caseload comprised approximately 17% of the federal appellate cases terminated in the year ending March 31, 2002, its decisions accounted for close to half (43%) of all the federal appellate decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court this past term. Comparatively, the 5th Circuit decided nearly 14% of federal appeals cases, but accounted for only 5.4% of the Supreme Court’s docket. The third largest federal appeals court, the 11th Circuit, accounted for nearly 13% of federal appellate caseload, but only 7.1% of the cases decided by the Supreme Court originated there.

This means that, on average, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was more than twice as likely to be reviewed and produce a written decision by the U.S. Supreme Court than was a case from the other federal appeals courts. By contrast, a case from the second busiest circuit, the 5th, was nearly a third less likely to be reviewed and decided by the High Court than the average federal appellate case.

It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts — most notably the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits, which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term. Yet these “complete” reversal rates are likely due to much less frequent review of those circuits by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, the High Court decided only eight cases from the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits combined (three from the 4th, three from the 5th, one from the 8th, and one from the 10th), compared with the 24 cases the Supreme Court took up from the 9th. Thus, the 9th Circuit’s lower overall reversal rate does not demonstrate the justices’ greater agreement with the decisions of the 9th Circuit, but is likely attributable to that circuit’s much higher review rate. Such a conclusion is only reinforced by the fact that the more than half (57%, or 8 of 14) of the federal appellate decisions the Supreme Court unanimously overturned came from the 9th Circuit. This means that a full one-third (8 of 24) of the 9th Circuit cases decided by the High Court were unanimously overturned.

These continuing negative trends are certainly not reflective of the competency of the 9th Circuit’s entire bench, which includes some of the most respected appellate judges in the country. It is, however, indicative of a judicial philosophy to which some 9th Circuit judges adhere. Specifically, in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until that changes, it is likely the justices will keep a watchful eye on the federal appeals court out West by continuing to review and reverse a disproportionately large number of 9th Circuit decisions.

http://www.centerforindividualfreedo...th_circuit.htm

Sorry, 75% was from a something I read along time ago.

Quote:

It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts — most notably the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits, which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term. Yet these “complete” reversal rates are likely due to much less frequent review of those circuits by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, the High Court decided only eight cases from the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits combined (three from the 4th, three from the 5th, one from the 8th, and one from the 10th), compared with the 24 cases the Supreme Court took up from the 9th. Thus, the 9th Circuit’s lower overall reversal rate does not demonstrate the justices’ greater agreement with the decisions of the 9th Circuit, but is likely attributable to that circuit’s much higher review rate. Such a conclusion is only reinforced by the fact that the more than half (57%, or 8 of 14) of the federal appellate decisions the Supreme Court unanimously overturned came from the 9th Circuit. This means that a full one-third (8 of 24) of the 9th Circuit cases decided by the High Court were unanimously overturned.

Quote:

Ninth Court Of Appeals
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would easily become the laughingstock of the judicial world if it were not for the fact that its rulings affect so many people and institutions. Rulings by the 9th apply to the nine westernmost states.

In the last several years, the 9th has led other courts in the number of decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the most recent session, the nation's highest court ruled on 80 cases. Twenty-five of those were from the 9th. The remaining 55 cases came from the other 12 circuits - including the Federal and D.C. circuits and state supreme courts. The ninth gets more than its fair share of high court scrutiny.

19 of the 25 cases from the 9th were overturned, twelve of them unanimously. Think of it. Decisions by the 9th Court of Appeals were so flawed that all of the justices on the Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals alike, voted unanimously twelve times to overturn them.

Just a few years ago, from 1996 to 1997, the Supreme Court reversed 27 of the 28 cases it considered from the 9th.

The problem with the 9th is that its judges instead of following the Constitution and applying judicial precedent - have been intent on legislating from the bench; that is, making up their own laws.

The 9th is largest of the appellate courts, representing about 20 percent of the nation's population, twice that of the other courts. Federal judges are appointed for life, so one way to rein in this rogue court is to split it into two smaller and more manageable courts, thereby evening its population representation and restricting its senseless and sometimes harmful decisions to smaller regions. Of course, appointing competent judges as vacancies occur would help mitigate the damage to the people living under the shadow of the 9th.

Two other circuits also distinguished themselves last year and not in a good way. Six of the eight decisions from the 6th circuit were overturned, four unanimously. And all four decisions from the 11th reviewed by the Supreme Court last session were overturned by all nine justices.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320887/posts

So my bad on the original numbers.

Superbelt · 04-05-2005, 12:29 PM

Wow, those sites aren't a biased lot are they?

I guess facts mean nothing to you when you actually take the numbers in context....

Most often overturned: OF COURSE, IT SEES TWICE AS MANY CASES AS ANYONE ELSE

Some nice number shiftings there. But the fact of the matter is, simply.

30% of cases. 30% of reversals.
They also do about 30% of the Federal Circuit cases.... So, again. THEY ARE NOT OUT OF LINE.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2005, 12:29 PM

Says you and your bias.

kutulu · 04-05-2005, 12:32 PM

The first article makes a nice attempt but falls short at the end:

Quote:

It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts — most notably the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits, which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term.

It goes on with a bunch of speculation after that.

The second source is so full of right wing buzzwords it isn't worthy of discussion. "Activist judges," "legislating from the bench," oh my!

Superbelt · 04-05-2005, 12:44 PM

Isn't it funny how facts like the 9th being overturned in less percentages than all the other courts gets in the way of a perfectly good witch-hunt?

DAMN YOU TO HELL TRUTH AND FACTS!

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2005, 12:50 PM

The fact being that a case from the 9th is twice as likely to be reviewed by average, as well as getting a published decision. Yeah that is funny.

Superbelt · 04-05-2005, 12:53 PM

yet not all of their cases are overturned.

As opposed to the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th.

As they have more of their cases reviewed, they also have a very large number that the SC AGREES with them on.

The SC agrees with the 9th circuit cases that they review more than any other circuit

Take that figure and dwell on it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2005, 12:58 PM

Yeah because it only hears at most a handful of cases from those smaller courts. At most the 4,5,8,10 courts only had three cases before the SC, compared with 24 for the 9th. The 9th nearly had as many unanimous overturned decisions as the other courts had cases, that is an interesting number. What about decisions between 96'-97' when 27 out of 28 decisions by the 9th were reversed?

Lebell · 04-05-2005, 01:02 PM

You boys want to take your 9th circuit argument to a new thread?

dy156 · 04-17-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Let's see, a judge says abortion is wrong, the right will love him and claim how he is a great judge...... the left condemns him

A judge approves abortion he is a leftist and needs to be taken off the bench..... the left loves him

A judge makes a ruling saying concealed weapons are ok.... the left hates him the right again loves the man

A judge decrees concealed weapons as illegal ...... the right wants him disbenched and the left love him....

Seems to me that whenever a ruling doesn't go one side's way they cry foul and claim the courts have overstepped boundaries.

Personally, these judges are human and they have the job to interpret the laws as they see fit. I do not honestly believe that judges are perfect but I do believe that they do the best job possible, in most cases.

To condemn these people who have made lifetimes of studying laws and learning to interpret them to the best of their ability is wrong.

It's one of the problems though that exists in our system. The party in chrage wants all the judges to be on their page. When this is not possible they will do all they can to discredit said judge and claim he is a problem to society because he does not interpret the laws the way the party in control so desires.

My opinion this is a very slippery slope we enter if we allow the controlling party to be able to hurt the judges abilities to rule on cases. Sure, the GOP will run roughshod now, but when the Dems return to power, the Dems then will be able to do so.

It is vital to our country and part of what has made this country great, that the minority and the dissenters have a voice and power in some way. To weaken the courts at this time would be a huge mistake and would give credence to leftists that believe the right is out for total control and will squash anyone that stands in their way.

This comes close to the heart of the matter. Good judges, and good justices, interpret the law. This ought to be given. People often get confused when it comes to the labels of conservative anf liberal judges. Remember it was this conservative Supreme Court that in Lopez said for the first time in decades that Congress had overstepped it's bounds in making a law against guns near schools, and that that law didn't really have anything to do with the interstate commerce clause, upon which Congress based it's authority to make such laws.
What?! a conservative Supreme Court overturning a law against guns near schools?!! What terrible activist judges!

That having been said, the 9th Circuit argument needs to be addressed.

Whether the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegience is a violation of the establishment clause should be an interpretation of the law, and not a political statement. However, most courts try not to get involved in potentially egregious political squabbles if it can be avoided. That case, at least, clearly could have been avoided on a very legitimate legal ground - standing, yet the 9th circuit chose to make a political statement with it. Thus, one more reason for that circuit's reputation for being "activist judges."
I'd have made the same call that the 9th Cir. did on the issue, but a good justice whio was following the law and not trying to make a polical point would have thrown the appeal out because the step-dad without custody did not have standing to bring the appeal. By not doing so, they were in fact, attempting to become activist judges. Thus their reputation is well-deserved.

Apart from that issue, John Cornyn really disappoints me. I am reminded of the chapter in Malcom Gladwell's bestseller Blink that discussed how people across America voted for Warren Harding because he looked "presidential" and my observation of how everyone in Texas talked about how John Cornyn looked Senatorial. In my opinion, this statement of his really makes him look ill-informed, if not stupid or intentionally deceptive. My guess is the latter, because he knows better.

Kadath · 04-18-2005, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

You boys want to take your 9th circuit argument to a new thread?

I think it should be tabled as it has been proved that Mojo was, by his own admission, quoting a number that was a lie created by certain political elements to discredit those with whom they disagree. Once he realized that falsehood, he should have fallen on his sword to relieve his shame.

As for Coryn, he's a clown. The two incidents of violence were not linked to any political case: they were simply people who were angry things didn't go their way. As for judges "overstepping" their role as interpreters...well, it seems some people aren't happy with their party simply controlling all three branches of government; they'd like it if every single thing went their way.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-18-2005, 07:21 AM

The number wasn't a lie, it just wasn't written in the right context. 75% of the 9th's cases that went to the higher court were overturned, it just happened that the number was lower then other courts rates.

Kadath · 04-18-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The number wasn't a lie, it just wasn't written in the right context. 75% of the 9th's cases that went to the higher court were overturned, it just happened that the number was lower then other courts rates.

You're right. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.

04-04-2005, 06:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There is a good point laid out there. A large segment of the population, myself included to a lesser extent, don't like what some judges have been doing in the country. I'm sure that "liberals" here feel the same way sometimes, judges on either side of the spectrum have the ability to dictate law, which over steps their purpose of interpretation. I don't think Delay is wrong for saying that he can/will go after their bench, that is something that is allowed by the constitution. Just because you are judge you don't have a get out of jail free card, they may not be accountable to the general population, but they can be held accountable to the Congress. It is completely legit if people rally and push THEIR REPRESENTATIVES do something about it, that's why it is allowed in the constitution. For the record I don't advocate violence against judges, nor do I think John Cornyn does either, he just said something that was mildy retarded. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-04-2005 at 06:42 PM..

04-04-2005, 06:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
Painted Pleasure Burn	People don't like going to prison. They don't like it one bit. __________________ I came across a nice rack at the department store

04-04-2005, 07:45 PM	#6 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Let's see, a judge says abortion is wrong, the right will love him and claim how he is a great judge...... the left condemns him A judge approves abortion he is a leftist and needs to be taken off the bench..... the left loves him A judge makes a ruling saying concealed weapons are ok.... the left hates him the right again loves the man A judge decrees concealed weapons as illegal ...... the right wants him disbenched and the left love him.... Seems to me that whenever a ruling doesn't go one side's way they cry foul and claim the courts have overstepped boundaries. Personally, these judges are human and they have the job to interpret the laws as they see fit. I do not honestly believe that judges are perfect but I do believe that they do the best job possible, in most cases. To condemn these people who have made lifetimes of studying laws and learning to interpret them to the best of their ability is wrong. It's one of the problems though that exists in our system. The party in chrage wants all the judges to be on their page. When this is not possible they will do all they can to discredit said judge and claim he is a problem to society because he does not interpret the laws the way the party in control so desires. My opinion this is a very slippery slope we enter if we allow the controlling party to be able to hurt the judges abilities to rule on cases. Sure, the GOP will run roughshod now, but when the Dems return to power, the Dems then will be able to do so. It is vital to our country and part of what has made this country great, that the minority and the dissenters have a voice and power in some way. To weaken the courts at this time would be a huge mistake and would give credence to leftists that believe the right is out for total control and will squash anyone that stands in their way. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-05-2005, 06:16 AM	#9 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	gross...there are plenty of ways of advocating a different balance of power between branches that don't involve thinly veiled threats. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

04-05-2005, 09:33 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i understand the viewpoint that pan6467 lays out above and to a certain extent agree with his position...but i wonder what the deeper motives behind the conservatvie attacks on the judiciary really are. their critiques at the level of theory seems absurd: the "strict construction" school is a joke conceptually and functionally little more than the pretext for making networks for the social advancement of young reactionary attornies, who otherwise might find that their mediocrity woudl impede theiur career advancement. what is more, it seems that the premises of strict construction--"what would the founders think"?--a thinly veiled "what would jesus do?"---does nto realyl corss with or explain the nature and goals behind these attacks. so what do conservative ideologues want from the judiciary? here's what it looks like: conservatives oppose the "big state"--which they claim is a function of their views on matters fiscal--but which seems to me about reducing the role of the public in shaping the affairs of capitalism. it seems to me mostly about an effort to make capitalism private legally and thereby making it unaccoutnable to anyone except maybe shareholders. i suppose there is a universe in which this ambition is rational--but then there is a universe in which dune seems like a good film. from this viewpoint, one could at least explain the attacks on the judiciary as such, rather than on particular aspects of the judiciary. another possibility is the nature of appointments to the bench, which i guess seem like giving judges tenure, which the right also opposes, allegedly on principle, but i suspect in fact to speed the plow of purges on political grounds, should the right ever gain hegemony. in short, i do not beleive the explanations given for this tack in rightwing ideology--if i did, i would simply echo some aspects of pan's post, which seems reasonable if you accept what the right machine says as reflecting what is really going on (which would make these statements an exception to the rule particular to that machinery). so what do you think is really going on behind the thick veil of conservative rhetoric? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-05-2005, 01:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Wow, what an ass. The judge in Chicago returned to work the day after her family was slain and this Cornyn thinks he can intimidate judges with a speech before an empty congress chamber.

04-05-2005, 10:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I'm so sick of the 'activist judges' label that's being thrown around. It's a bunch of bullshit whining by a party that is upset that their laws are constantly being declared unconstitutional becuase they are in fact, unconstitutional. Why can't the public get it into their heads that it is the politicians that are the activists? It's the politicians that have to go out and rally people to their causes.

04-05-2005, 11:43 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	So I suppose that courts like the 9th circuit, who in recent years past have held rates of up to 75% of their decisions being overturned, I suppose that they aren't activist. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2005, 11:55 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i suspect that you understand "activitist" as a term that designates judge with whom you disagree politically, mojo. but the latest turns in far right land seem to render even that understanding of the term moot. so now, at the hands of such wunderkind as cornyn, the term seems to refer, if to anything, to the requirement that all judges in all situations conform precisely to the desires of the far right. if they do not, then they--well what?--face the possibility of idiots like delay and cornyn claiming that violence against judges is a form of legitimate political expression-- (a claim that self-evidently would only obtain with reference to actions carried out by the far right) from which one can concluce that these people--who are as horrifying as this is, in positions of authority--are advocating something like a putsch (or series of putsches) directed against the judiciary. and why not? it worked in early 1930s germany--why not here now? quite a fine bunch you carry water for, mojo. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-05-2005 at 11:58 AM..

04-05-2005, 12:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	so roach, I suspect you are in favor of judges using foreign laws as a basis for interpreting the US constitution? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

04-05-2005, 12:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	*nods 75% would have really been a pretty shocking and revealing figure. I suppose it still is, just in a different way. Good work on the numbers, superbelt. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

04-05-2005, 12:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Wow, those sites aren't a biased lot are they? I guess facts mean nothing to you when you actually take the numbers in context.... Most often overturned: OF COURSE, IT SEES TWICE AS MANY CASES AS ANYONE ELSE Some nice number shiftings there. But the fact of the matter is, simply. 30% of cases. 30% of reversals. They also do about 30% of the Federal Circuit cases.... So, again. THEY ARE NOT OUT OF LINE.

04-05-2005, 12:29 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Says you and your bias. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2005, 12:44 PM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Isn't it funny how facts like the 9th being overturned in less percentages than all the other courts gets in the way of a perfectly good witch-hunt? DAMN YOU TO HELL TRUTH AND FACTS!

04-05-2005, 12:50 PM	#24 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The fact being that a case from the 9th is twice as likely to be reviewed by average, as well as getting a published decision. Yeah that is funny. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2005, 12:53 PM	#25 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	yet not all of their cases are overturned. As opposed to the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th. As they have more of their cases reviewed, they also have a very large number that the SC AGREES with them on. The SC agrees with the 9th circuit cases that they review more than any other circuit Take that figure and dwell on it.

04-05-2005, 12:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah because it only hears at most a handful of cases from those smaller courts. At most the 4,5,8,10 courts only had three cases before the SC, compared with 24 for the 9th. The 9th nearly had as many unanimous overturned decisions as the other courts had cases, that is an interesting number. What about decisions between 96'-97' when 27 out of 28 decisions by the 9th were reversed? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2005, 01:02 PM	#27 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	You boys want to take your 9th circuit argument to a new thread? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-18-2005, 07:21 AM	#30 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The number wasn't a lie, it just wasn't written in the right context. 75% of the 9th's cases that went to the higher court were overturned, it just happened that the number was lower then other courts rates. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.