…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. And no one, including those judges, including the judges on the United States Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects.

And, Mr. President, I'm going to make clear that I object to some of the decision-making process that is occurring at the United States Supreme Court today and now. I believe that insofar as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to the increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights. That is a very current problem that this body faces today. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. I mean, why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative?

Of course the difference is that they can throw the rascal -- the rascal out -- and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal -- if they don't like the decisions that we make. But they can't vote against a judge because judges aren't elected. They serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. And, indeed, I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision-making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe. And that is a national tragedy.

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.

You know, it's ironic, if you look back, as we all have, being students of history in this body, all of us have been elected to other -- to other bodies and other offices and we're all familiar with the founding documents, the declaration of independence, the constitution itself, we're familiar with the federalist papers that were written in an effort to get the constitution ratified in New York state. Well, Alexander Hamilton, apropos of what I want to talk about here, authored a series of essays in the Federalist Papers that opined that the judicial branch would be what he called the -- quote -- "least dangerous branch of government." The "least dangerous branch." He pointed out that the judiciary lacked the power of the executive branch, the white house, for example, and the federal government and the political passions of the legislature. In other words, the congress. Its sole purpose -- that is, the federal judiciary's sole purpose was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the land and in...

rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people

Aside from the issue of the Senate wanting to control the Judiciary (and I concur that is beyond sick) I do not see anything outrageous about Sen. Coryn's statement in and of itself. I do not see where he advocates, condones or encourages the killing of Judges. All I see from what has been posted is him exploring a possible reason why this is happening. And I think the man has a point. For example.. Look at Judge Judith Retchin....she admitted that her reason for sentencing Jonathan Magbie to 10 days in jail was because he said he would not stop using medical marijuana. She said she and her staff made a mistake in determining whether or not the jail could meet his very advanced medical needs. And he died an awful death. And she is still on the bench, cleared of any wrong doing and ready for the next invalid pot smoker that winds up in her coourtroom. Unaccountable. Completely Unaccountable. And there is no way for the public to hold her accountable since Judges aren't elected. There is no legal recourse. Yet the FBI came to my house investigating an alleged website posting that they considered a possible threat against Judge Retchin made by someone else on a site and server hosted in Canada. I do not and never would advcate violence against anyone but I see a lot of injustice in courtrooms here in Alabama and it isn't hard to see what it is that pushes people over the edge. Not condoning it. Not advocating it. Simply acknowledging it.

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of terrorism around the world. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of terrorism 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 nations are making ... 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.

the senator is simply making thing up to suit his own point of view,

And let's be honest here. Republicans want activist judges. They just want them to be activist their way.

I cannot believe you all here are so opposed to this- It is one thing to disagree with what he says, but you all should be supportive of his right to say it! Freedom of Speech! If you don't have that in the Halls of Governance, then what kind of Dark Age are you trying to promote!

Fair enough. But you said earlier you called on him to retract them. I do not remember anyone from the left calling on Ward to retract his considerably worse (IMHO) statements. And if you aren't out for firing him, I'm sure he appreciates your vote in the next election.

As a vehement opponent of gay marriage, Cornyn has a history of attacking the judiciary. In a CNN interview last year, Cornyn expressed his concern over "a handful of activist judges who are radically redefining our society's most famous institution." Days later, at a news conference with fellow radical conservatives, Cornyn stepped up the rhetoric: "I believe we've done our job by highlighting the threat to the rights of the American people by activist judges." During the committee hearings on one of President Bush's judicial nominees, Cornyn exposed that the real purpose behind the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was to circumvent the judiciary: "[T]he only way that the people of this country can respond when a handful of judges rewrite the Constitution…is through a constitutional amendment process."

IS a lot of angst over the Judiciary taking more and more authority and power. Judges more and more are ruling on things that shoould be left in the realm of the Legislative and Executive branches, and there is no recourse outside of other judges.

that might extend to drug dealers

Lefties maybe shouldn't talk about using courts to get stuff done they can't get passed in the legislature.

It still turns the judiciary into a political group subject to the whims of whoever can contribute the most soft money.