Senator Cornyn is Exactly Right

Senator Cornyn is taking all kinds of fire (some of it more or less friendly) in response to a recent speech which included this paragraph:

Finally, 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 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.

The noise about this statement is another example of the modern custom of excluding from public discourse any acknowledgment of the most obvious and important facts.  Some of the people criticizing Senator Cornyn are the usual suspects.  Some, like NRO's Jonah Goldberg ought to know better.  I sent him an email in the hope that he may return to the path of righteousness:

Jonah,

Why are you so eager to join in the chorus of people who are twisting Senator Cornyn's words so they can suppress a timely and important message? 

Cornyn never advocated violence against judges.  He also never said anything "insupportable on the facts."  There is nothing in the offending paragraph of his speech that says or even suggests that any of the recent examples of courtroom violence stem from frustration about gross judicial overreaching.  Cornyn specifically declined to make any factual statements about causation that might be fair game for criticism.

What he did say was that recent examples of courtroom violence should be a warning to us and to the judiciary.  This is not a rationally debatable point; the good Senator is plainly right.

In the Schiavo case and in other high-profile matters judges have openly and notoriously unmoored themselves from their obligation to the law.  They are making it impossible for us to resolve our most contentious public disputes through rational debate followed by an orderly vote.  The normal politics of a constitutional republic are becoming beside the point. 

If we cannot resolve our differences through normal politics we will descend into violence.  This comes as close to being an absolute law of human history as any statement can.  Cornyn was issuing a well-justified warning.  If we remain on the course our judiciary has set it will end in bloodshed and judges will be among those shedding blood.  This warning neither stupid nor irresponsible.  Ignoring it is both.

Peter Mulhern

It isn't irresponsible to point out the dangers inherent in your situation.  If you are travel ling with a drunk driver who insists on going 100 mph on a country road it is perfectly reasonable to observe that you are likely to end up in the morgue. It is irresponsible to ignore a danger until it becomes a catastrophe, which is what Jonah Goldberg and many others apparently want to do. 

What makes the chattering class completely take leave of its senses whenever the subject of lawyers in black robes comes to the fore? 

Comments

[Luciferous]

Let me try to answer your question. I have found the old saw "opposites attract" to be true for magnets but not people. People bond because of common interests, outlooks, culture, etc. The chatterers and judges are both verbalists - they live through words. Therefore, while they may use words for different ends their allegance to words binds them at a very fundamental level. That level establishes the class at large, and "People Like Us" bonds are terribly difficult to overcome, even if there is a significant reason to do so. The threshold for significance becomes virtually insuperable.