Cornyn backs away

So Senator Cornyn has now revised and extended his original remarks.

Cornyn tried Tuesday to stop what he called the misrepresentation of a speech about the judiciary that he made on the Senate floor a day earlier.

With the criticism of his comments escalating throughout the day, he returned to the Senate floor late Tuesday.

"We should all be disturbed by overheated rhetoric about the judiciary from both sides of the aisle," he said. "I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution."

He said he had not meant that attacks on judges or their families could be justified.

In the original remarks, he questioned whether recent violent strikes against federal judges were the result of jurists' issuing political rulings.

After pointing out the "increasing politicization of the judicial decision-making process," Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, said he wondered "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."

Tuesday night on the Senate floor, he attempted to clarify those earlier remarks.

"I want to make one thing clear," Cornyn said. "I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have captured the nation's attention in recent years."

I've read the full text of Cornyn's original statement. It's true, he never mentioned Terri Schiavo. The bulk of what he said was criticism of a couple of recent decisions, including the Supreme Court ruling on executions of juveniles. It doesn't make what he said any less stupid or offensive, not to mention completely irrelevant to his intended point. Cornyn is smart enough to know that what he said about the "perception" of a connection between unpopular decisions and violence or threats against judges would be incendiary. He chose to say it anyway, and he deserves the thrashing he's taken for it.

I must say, if Cornyn were really concerned about retribution against judges, there are a number of things he could have done. He could have denounced all the overheated rhetoric we've been subjected to since the Schiavo case, something which he has now at least addressed by distancing himself from Tom DeLay's "they will pay" statement. Of course, doing so would have meant attacking a nontrivial segment of the Republican base. No Sister Souljah moments for him! He could have announced an intention to introduce legislation that would broaden protections for judges against that kind of threat and intimidation. He even could have simply skipped over his offensive speculation about cause and effect and talked more about his time as a judge and the unpopular decisions he had to make, maybe drawing a distinction between decisions that are unpopular because they stick to the law and decisions that are unpopular because they are "activist", whatever that means to you.

But he didn't do that. I'm glad to see that he's apologized, but it's not enough. I stand by what I said.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on April 06, 2005 to National news | TrackBack