Excusing Murderers

Sigh.

So the most recent episode of judge killings would lead us to conclude that nig**** have no chance in the USA, and because judges are making decisions that are unaccountable to the nig**** public, the end result is a build up, that results in violence.

Do we have to go over the difference between explaining and explaining away, between analyzing and excusing?

So there’s no such thing as “a moronic explanation”?

I can in fact well imagine that the atmosphere of dislike and disrespect for judges (fomented on the right by those who want to get more power into the hands of DeLay et al. and on the left by those who are aware how bad and partisan decisions like Bush v. Gore have been) might indirectly lead to a higher likelihood of violence against them.

If Cornyn was a judge, then, well, he really has no excuse for being this badly informed, assuming as I do that he’s not evil.

Rilkefan,

I think your interpretation is overly charitable. The senator uses a familiar hydraulic trope when he speculates that discontent “builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.” What’s the point of this, if not to excuse the killers? In this picture, the ones doing the violence can’t help themselves; the ever-increasing pressure of their righteous outrage has pushed them past the point of self-control.

I’m always happy when these people display their flagrant insanity in public. I just hope moderate voters are paying attention. And the Democrats need to get their act together and bring it to their attention. Do everything possible to make damn sure the Republican Party is stuck with the likes of DeLay and Cornyn as its public face.

Clearly, the tragic murder of Judge Lefkow could have been avoided, had Mr. Ross been allowed to circumvent the activist left-wing judiciary and take his case to the only truly fair and impartial arbiters left in this country: Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Jeb & George W. Bush.

rilkefan, I like this “explain” vs. “explain away” distinction. Let me see if I get it:

US foreign policy in the Middle East in the Cold War era resulted in the construction of a network of militarized Saudis, who in turn recruited others caught up in a radical fundamentalist version of Islam, in a war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Having been politicized by this experience, and turning an eye to hundreds of years of European colonialism in the Middle East and to what he perceives to be the continuation of that colonialism in the construction of the state of Israel, a young veteran of the US-trained Saudi campaign in Afghanistan turns on his masters and declares war against them, resulting in the 9/11 attacks.

I seem to remember lots of people trying to distinguish this explanation of 9/11 (call it the “blowback” thesis) from a moral justification of it (“explaining away” or what we could call the “payback” thesis).

Do I have you right, rilkefan?

Note: Matt above means “Godwin-affirming” when he says “Godwin-violating.”

“Saying that judges are somehow to blame for violence against judges and courtworkers should be enough to get you kicked out of any ethically responsible caucus.”

I agree completely. Replace “Judges” with “Women” and I agree completely. Replace “judges” with “America”, and I also agree completely. But I seem to be pretty unique, there. The mental disconnect that allows 99% of the Left to understand the first two instances, and deny the third, is at the core of the left’s current problems.

stand-up – exactly – in fact I made that argument on Obsidian Wings.

Why do I assume Cornyn’s not evil? Well, I’ve not seen any evidence. And there’s a perfectly good non-evil explanation to reach for first – he’s not too sharp, it was late, he’s a rabid partisan with some looney ideas and some looney misinformation, and he has the kernel of what seems like a true thought to me – the anti-judiciary emotions out there are frightening.

Imagine, if you will, my fellow lefties, that you read a post by David Neiwert saying, The Republicans are whipping up a fervor against judges, and it’s going to end with another Tim McVeigh. Wouldn’t you nod your heads and say, “Orcinus is a wee bit paranoid, but maybe he’s right.”

rilkefan, good, then we agree that “ben” is completely off base in thinking that “99% of the Left” is engaged in “blaming” (=”explaining away” = “morally justifying”) “America” when a “blowback” as opposed to a “payback” thesis is advanced re: 9/11.

But an (un)healthy percentage of the left has absolutely no problem playing that game with suicide bombing against Israel (in the diplomat’s phrase “that shitty little country”.

sebastian wrote: But an (un)healthy percentage of the left has absolutely no problem playing that game with suicide bombing against Israel (in the diplomat’s phrase “that shitty little country”.

Do you really think many people on the left morally justify suicide bombing? Who are these creatures?

And do you really think someone in Jacques Chirac’s government (the “diplomat” you refer to) is on the left? When was it exactly that Chirac became a leftist? That seems to have escaped my attention.

rilkefan, i wasn’t trying to catch you out. sorry if i gave that impression. i was trying to enlist you in pointing out ben’s (and now sebastian’s) inability to see the point you and i are trying to make, together.

Note: Matt above means “Godwin-affirming” when he says “Godwin-violating.”

actually, to not invoke Hitler is a violation of Godwin’s law, which merely states that any conversation of sufficient length will result in a reference to Hilter and the Nazis.

“And do you really think someone in Jacques Chirac’s government (the “diplomat” you refer to) is on the left? When was it exactly that Chirac became a leftist? That seems to have escaped my attention.”

From the point of view of the American public, Chirac is definitely a leftist. But his location more to the center by European standards only reinforces how routinely anti-Israeli language (and justification akin to that currently worried about when employed by Conryn) is used by those in high positions in Europe.

And I don’t think you are going to argue that those more to the left of Chirac are less likely to employ soaring rhetoric against Israel, so I’m not really sure what your point is.

See, I don’t even have to go looking for quotes. Asteele came to me.

Actually, the obvious point here is that a noted American leftist, Bernadette Dohrn, once praised Charles Manson. Thus, there are some leftists who think we should all murder Hollywood starlets. And then they work up a fit of dudgeon about a Senator from Texas, who has never once said we should murder Hollywood starlets, or at least pregnant ones!
The hypocrisy of the left is truly disgusting, here! Clearly, endorsing threats to murder — but not murder, itself — the judiciary is a little above the moral sewer of the well known I love Charlie Manson crowd that writes for Crooked Timber.

“Now you are perfectly free to think that the explanations offered by people of Palestinian suicide bombers are so weak that they hide other factors, but what you are doing then is precisely trying to explain their actions.”

That is precisely what I think. Hence my comparison between such rhetoric and the lines that Cornyn used. The same type of explanation-as-not-quite-justification is being employed in both cases.

As for asteele: “Of course since I wasn’t excusing anything”. Excellent illustration of deniability. Just like Cornyn said today on the floor: “My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well. We should all want judges to interpret the law fairly – not impose their own personal views on the nation. We should all want to fix our broken judicial confirmation process. And we should all be disturbed by overheated rhetoric about the judiciary, from both sides of the aisle. 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.”

Right. Out of context. Ever thought of running for office asteele?

As I said willful misreading. What I was trying to point out was that your analaogy between Palenstein/Israel and the judge thing isn’t a very good fit. In the case of the Senator’s statement there is no underlying casual connection between the violence, wherein in the case of Isarel it looks like there is. The Senator’s statement would be like claming that it was Israel’s selling missle technology to the Chinese that is provoking the terrorism. Politically sensitive judgements have nothing to do with the recent violence against judges.

However, you decided to read that as me loving me some suicide bombings. Which I don’t. I assume if I said that sucide bombings in Iraq have something to do with the fact we invaded their country, you’d accuse me of supporting the insurgency. Or if I said that American policies in the 1940’s had something to do with pearl-harbor, you’d accuse me of supporting the Japanese.

Asteele, Conryn said (though now appears to have backed away from) the idea that generalized anger at an out-of-control judiciary contributed to a climate of disliking or disrespecting judges that could have helped inspire recent anti-judicial violence (which of course, of course, of course he says slyly is wrong). This is exactly what leftists do all the time about suicide bombings. It isn’t quite an excuse but it really is. If you recognize the rhetorical technique in Conryn you should be able to recognize it when other people use it. You don’t have to personally believe that bombing coffee shops is good (Conryn almost certainly doesn’t believe that murdering judges is good, he was one). Instead you use pseudo-justification rhetoric to make a morbid point about the badness of the people being killed. Which is exactly what you did and are still doing vis-a-vis Israel.

“It isn’t quite an excuse but it really is.”

No, it’s not! To quote a very very relevant and very very obvious thing Josh Marshall pointed out:

Let alone the fact that the statement is ridiculous on its face since violence against judges in this country is almost exclusively the work of disgruntled defendents or homicidal maniacs who manage to wrestle a gun away from a bailiff

How can you not take that into account?

You’re drawing a comparison between a *war context*, where terrorist groups targets Israel, Israeli citizens become target of a fight against Israeli occupation (that’s the obvious stated intent of terrorism, just like in Iraq, the stated intent is to fight the US occuaption, nevermind the moral justification or lack thereof or the success of that strategy or lack thereof – that’s what the terrorists who kill and kidnap civilians, as well as military, have as political target, any political analysis acknowledges that because that is a matter of fact statement, not an endorsement!) and the *ordinary context of a legal system in a democracy*, when the extraordinary violence against judges is committed by lone psychos and murderers with no stated political intent except take it out on those who rightfully sent them to jail.

Or do you honestly think that those wackos who fire at policemen and judges for simply upholding non-debated, non-political laws like, oh, punishment for murder, are motivated by some political intent to protest against ‘activist’ judges?

That is what Cornyn is suggesting, even if he doesn’t say so explicitely, he first disclaims a cause-effect link yet he goes and implies exactly that inference.

To compare this with war and terrorism is absurd. It is only a very poor attempt at deflection. If there is any comparison to be made, then that violence against judges can be said to be more similar to the mafia killings of judges in Italy in the 80’s, and even that was a lot more political because the mafia is an organisation with political branches, not a handful of isolated disrgruntled defendants and homicidal maniacs who _simply hated being brought to the law_ for crimes whose nature no one is debating.

It’s just paradoxical to refuse to consider that little detail of who is actually doing the killing. Even in Israel, murders occur, independently of the war and terrorism context. If a man who killed his wife were to assassinate an Israeli judge who sentenced him to prison for killing his wife, would anyone be so crazy to infer any link with the wider political situation — which is clearly a lot more dramatic and obvious in every aspect of public life in Israel, than the political fighting between the executive and judges in the US?

Your comments, Sebastian, would only make sense if those who are attacking judges were sent by those political groups who do voice political attacks against “activist judges”.

So paradoxically, only if Cornyn himself was a judge killer and a cop killer, then he would have a point…

Just to follow up:

I’m a little bit uncomfortable with telling people that “What you say is true, but you can’t say it out loud! We must act as if it is not true.” But I don’t have any such problem in blasting Cornyn, since what he said was both unwise and untrue.

It IS true, at the limit; While judges are not sufficiently “activist” today to inspire their murder at any significant rate, it’s certainly possible for them to become so blatently illegitimate in their rulings as to start attracting assasins.

“But surely it is much worse to make such a statement when it is purely for the purpose of manipulation. Cornyn’s statement had no effect other than manipulation. It doesn’t provide any insight into violence against judges, because, as many people have pointed out, that violence is unconnected with the sorts of political decisions that Cornyn talks about.”

Absolutely. I’m not defending what Cornyn says at all. I’m pointing out that he is appropriating the murder for the purpose of demonizing the victim and people in a class loosely like the victim. Those here are quick to see that when it is done by a conservative. Those here are sloth-like in their ability to apply that insight to those on their own side. It’s not shocking. I’m slow to apply such insights to my own side too. But that doesn’t make them untrue. That makes them uncomfortable. Very rarely do I see the “yes, but” statements about suicide bombing coming up in a constructive context. Almost always they transform the death of Israeli civilians into a narrative of demonizing Israelis. It isn’t impossible to talk about them in a constructive way, but it is certainly rare. The interesting thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the rhetorical device get applied by both sides. In conservative circles, Israeli excesses almost always get turned into morality stories with a lesson which could easily be summed up as “she asked for it”. That is one of the problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. In the international community it is more likely to be used as a dramatic illustration of some outside point about imperialism or terrorism than it is actually dealt with as a conflict that anyone want to try to end.

brett writes: Daryl, I’d call that a failure of imagination on your part.

No, I can imagine it, in the sense that I can imagine my winning the Nobel prize. But I don’t consider it a possibility worth considering.

brett,

I don’t see what your examples have to do with anything. Yes, a judge can rule in a way that will strike the majority as unfair or illegitimate. So what? What does that have to do with violence against judges? Nothing. Violence against judges is not caused by judicial activism.

Shorter Sebastian: Oh looky there, all those pro-palestinian protesters, they don’t acknowledge they demonise victims of terrorism! So this makes a politician demonising victims of lone psychos a bit less troublesome, doesn’t it! Phew, we can all go home now, moral clarity once again established.

“And the key to it remaining true, is judges NOT thinking they can get away with anything they feel like.”

There you go, another one for the series “I’m not really excusing what Conryn said but he has a point.” Or may have, in the near future. If those pesky judges don’t stop attracting psychotic killers like bees on honey — killers who no doubt, had the debate over euthanasia in mind when they planted a bullet in that judge’s head. Maybe they were thinking of that debate in a slightly different perspective from the political ones we’re used to, granted, but still… those judges need to learn they can’t simply apply existing laws to send criminals to jail, and get away with it. The nerve.

Maybe politicians need to learn they can’t just rewrite laws or even, gosh, propose new ones and get away with it?

I think my postman also needs to learn he can’t just deliver any mail he wants, and get away with it…

And what about professors and school shootings?

After all, just because you’re doing your job, doesn’t mean you should be safe from crazy people with guns, really. That’s just asking too much.

In am suggesting that anybody, ANYBODY, in a position of power, will be tempted to abuse that power. Including judges, who are members of the same species as the rest of us, just as subject to temptation as anybody else. And that the less they are accountable to their victims, the greater that temptation.

Judges, with lifetime tenure, start out particularly unaccountable to the public. Essentially the only formal accountability they need be concerned about is the possiblity of impeachment. When even a large minority in the legislature approves of their abuses, that possiblity of being held acountable vanishes, and they exercise power without consequence. Are capable of judicial impositions which could never be enacted, and which are beyond the reach of the public to stop.

Indeed, a great deal of modern constitutional theory is nothing more than sophistry designed to rationalize such abuses, to salve the consciences of judges who commit them.

Like it or not, the existance of an armed populace, able, and in extreme circumstances, willing to, resort to violence, is an informal constraint on the abusive exercise of power, which even somebody who is free from any formal constraint must take into account.

Don’t like this reasoning? Tough noogies. We probably aren’t philosophical brothers under the skin.

Heh, there have been a few supreme court justices so corrupt (at least in biographies of them) in their private and professional lives that if the truth had gotten out, they probably would have been assassinated (if not directly impeached). But from my hobbyist historical view point, I can’t think of one single case of a judge being killed for his interpretation of the law (yet many for their willingness to pass judgement).

Really, why should a constitution get away with separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, where the judiciary, not being democratically elected by voters in polls with a 45% turnout, is clearly “unaccountable”? Somebody is probably preparing to shoot the constitution right now…

How about cops, too. Maybe they’re excused because they have guns, too? People with guns, that’s who should rule, that’s who guarantees the balance of power. It makes sense.

brett writes: …liberals have fallen into the easy vice of simply assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is malevolent.

Why do you think that’s more common among liberals? I find the opposite true.

Of course, conservative politicians and pundits might be only portraying opponents as traitors, immoral, anti-life, anti-family, etc. for political purposes. Maybe they don’t actually believe what they are saying?

“So Ronald Reagan was selecting the wrong type of people for judicial appointments, Brett?”

Yes. Selecting judges who will allow federal usupations of power to continue is a bipartisan game, the people who actually run the GOP have long since made their peace with the Leviathan, and aspire only to be the ones who control it, not to kill the beast.

Somewhere in the middle of the continuum between rubberstamping and making shit up as they go along is found the proper role of judges.

“but the suggestion that judges simply “make shit up as they go along” on a regular basis is, frankly, preposterous.”

I agree; They’ve gone too far down that road, but they’ve scarcely reached it’s end yet. But what are we to do, withold all complaints until abuses have become the rule, rather than the exception? Even if they only occasionally make shit up, it’s too often.

Frankly, though, the most important abuse of the judiciary is their failure to act, not positive abuses. Faced with a legislature and President routinely exercising powers they have no legitmate claim to, the courts simply throw up their hands and find some excuse to let them do it, instead of calling them on it.

And this is only to be expected, because the corruption of the judiciary is a consequence of the corruption of the other two branches, it’s not independent. A President and Senate which want no limits on their own power, appoint judges disinclined to enforce those limits. And it should come as no supprise that someone who’s willing to let someone ELSE usurp power, might be up for a bit of usurping of their own.

And all because FDR couldn’t be bothered to amend the Constitution, to get the powers he wanted, legitimately, and so corrupted the courts as a shortcut to power.

What kcindc said.

Even if they only occasionally make shit up, it’s too often.

Again, no specifics are offered.

Nothing that’s been said in this thread has disabused me of the notion that “judicial activism” is nothing more than a nifty label for “judicial decisions I don’t like.”