Tuesday, April 05, 2005

What They Said. . .

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) can sit on it and spin. Violence for the purpose of political intimidation is terrorism. I don't care how much he wants to try to justify it. Here's the terrorism apologist himself:

"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. 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.

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."


Sullivan: "poison", Instabastard: "Un-American", Althouse: "shame", The Debate Link: "hyperbolic rhetoric", and Joe Gandelman: "Excuses for Terrorism", who all link to multiple more rightfully upset people.