I wonder how much more the Republican party is going to continue pushing the idea that judges should be objects of scorn. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:
“Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them,” she recounted. “Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”
damn you’re good..!
Your propaganda gets better everyday.
Where in that article did it mention a republican pushing scorn on judges?
Are you suggesting that Republicans haven’t been pushing the idea that judges should be object of scorn?
dr pedro. Do you honestly believe that it WASN’T a right-wing asshole that tried to assassinate Supreme Court judges?
The left can produce violent activist (usually PETA-types), but violent protests are almost exclusively the province of the right wing and always has been.
This can’t even be argued.
Isn’t she Republican? So now the Republicans are going after Republican judges and justices?
Whoever it is went after all of them Hedley, presumably with the aim of killing as many as possible, knowing that Bush would nominate right wing judges to replace them. Thats presuming it is a right winger, and yeah the article doesnt really say that it was, but how much hostility towards judges has come out of the left recently?
Wouldn’t the alleged right-winger be satisfied with Scalia, for instance? Why go after him?
The left certainly had plenty of hostility for Alito and Roberts.
The right has consistently been pushing the idea that “out of control” judges are worthy of being shot, killed etc. They’ve created a culture for this sort of thing.
Any indication as to the date of this incident? I don’t think the article mentions it.
I suspect it’s a fairly recent date, but O’Connor was on the court for a long time…
Hedley,
By all logical reasoning, yes, Republicans should be more than happy with the conservative judges.
But logic isn’t the real force behind how these people behave.I believe there was a blogger, Rotweiler something or other, who openly said that all of the SCOTUS judges should be hanged.
pedro – you’re kidding right? Everyone knows that the right has been pushing the “evil activist judges” bulldada for years. And this concept reaches its apotheosis in the wingnutosphere.
You did say the Republicans were heaping scones on the Judges, didn’t you?
Well?
Look, this is stupid. A perfectly rational man — or woman — doesn’t wake up one day, hear a comment by a politician, or read a comment by a Blogger, and think, “Must.. poison.. judges.. ”
If that were the case, Bush would have been pushed down a well 5 years ago, by one of his jillions of “enemies.”
A perfectly rational man — or woman
Who was talking about the perfectly rational? You’re right that just because Ann Coulter makes a comment about poisoning a justice’s dinner that not every one of Ann’s robotic harp seals applauds madly and then goes about executing the plot. The vast majority of her fans have enough basic self-preservation instinct to not do such a thing.
The problem is that not every member of any audience–be they football fans, theatergoers, or right-wing blog readers–are “perfectly rational.”
And all you need is one man with enough lunacy and cookie batter to read yet another casual “let’s kill the judges who won’t vote the way I want them to” column before you get anecdotes like the above.
But please, fd10801, point me to the mainstream liberal pundit who included such incendiary language as that.
The right has consistently been pushing the idea that “out of control” judges are worthy of being shot, killed etc.
Oh please. You complain endlessly when somebody takes various statements from fruit loop left wingers and throws a blanket over all liberals but you’re doing the same thing here.
Practice what you preach.
You seem to have forgotten the invective and anger thrown at the Supreme Court in the fall of 2000. It wasn’t just for fun that the five who made the decision had to have additional security and protection afterwards.
Stop acting like violent behavior or attitudes is something is limited to the right. When you see these violent protests all over the world at G8 summits, it isn’t conservatives busting windows, overturning cars and setting fires big guy.
Just like Andrew McCrae and Internt spawned violence, I really don’t think progressives want to start an argument about harsh, politically-oriented rhetoric and violence against judges. Brian Nichols stands in waiting.
So would any idiot right winger here (I’m looking at you Jay) like to defend pedro’s initial suggestion that the right hasn’t made attacking federal judges a major plank in its rhetoric?
Again with Mr. McRae, Dugger? You ought to look into developing a keyboard shortcut for his name to save the wear and tear on your fingers.
Now back to the topic at hand: which party was it whose leading figures took part in the “Justice Sunday” telecasts? Help me remember–did those telecasts make the Supreme Court and federal judges in general look like good Americans or a threat to our way of life?
You seem to have forgotten the invective and anger thrown at the Supreme Court in the fall of 2000.
How much of that invective came from the House majority leader or Senate majority leader at the time? On national TV?
Folks, we’re talking about the wackjobs working inside our national political parties here, not some loner posting on IndyMedia.
Quaker, A lot of harsh rhetoric was directed at the Supreme Court after the 2000 election and just look back at some of the assaults on Judge Bork. H*ll, I remember (way back) leftist Jonothan Jackson and his gang’s murderous rampage in California courthouse.
The truth is that no mainstream person of either party has advocated violence against judges. There has been strong criticism from the right of decisions and activism and sometimes strong criticism from the left.
BTW, why do you suppose OW did not mention that the incident in question ALSO included mailings to the FBI heads and the military heads.
That would seem to subtract from his fantsy somewhat, nicht wahr?
The mailer was a 60 year old woman from Connectucut with a previous history of bad behavior. Absolutley no word has leaked from officials proceedings as to her motives and/or her political leanings – if any.
The truth is that no mainstream person of either party has advocated violence against judges. There has been strong criticism from the right of decisions and activism and sometimes strong criticism from the left.
The truth is that Ann Coulter is mainstream. If you get invited on dozens of talk shows a year to promote your continuously bestselling books (and how does one get to be a bestseller…are we presuming that only a half dozen people are buying 2 million copies?), then you can’t claim you’re a fringe personality.
And the truth is that Ann regularly spews bilge like this:
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”
Does this prove “all” mainstream conservatives? No. But “no mainstream person,” as Dugger claims, seems put to paid here.
BTW, why do you suppose OW did not mention that the incident in question ALSO included mailings to the FBI heads and the military heads.
The mailer was a 60 year old woman from Connectucut with a previous history of bad behavior.
And of course you have a link for that, right? Because there is no mention of that in the story Oliver linked to.
The truth is that no mainstream person of either party has advocated violence against judges. There has been strong criticism from the right of decisions and activism and sometimes strong criticism from the left.
I repeat: how much of that vilification on the left was from the House majority leader or Senate majority leader on national TV?
And I know you’re not arguing that this vilification has no effect on behavior. Your previous postings express quite a contrary view.
The truth is that no mainstream person of either party has advocated violence against judges.
Err…did someone claim that this has happened? I missed it.
Like I said, great propaganda. Link to an article that doesn’t support even a little bit of your article, and wait for the leftist hallelujah chorus to chime in about presumtions of guilt without any evidence…
didn’t you morons learn anything from the dan rather debacle? You don’t get to invent your own facts to suit your arguments…
Peed’, you seem to be having some trouble understanding what OW wrote. Let me help.
See, first OW recalls that hardline conservatives have been criticizing the judiciary in general, not just specific judges. You’ve seen examples, haven’t you? If not, I’ll provide a few. Or you can just Google up “Justice Sunday.”
Next, OW relates that recollection to a newly-published story that says the whole Supreme Court got batches of poisoned cookies in the mail as well as other threats.
Now here’s the hard part: OW implies that there’s a connection between the two.
No, that’s not in the story. That’s where Mr. Willis brings together two separate ideas and adds his own commentary with a link to the articles that made him think of it.
If you search, you might find some other examples of this sort of writing on the Internet.
I think I understand this just fine quaker:
“I wonder how much more the Republican party is going to continue pushing the idea that judges should be objects of scorn.” with an imbeded link to “objects of scorn”
This implies there will be a direct connection in the link…there is none.
Wonderful yellow journalism, know your echo-chamber audience and the fact that they just take things that they would like to believe without any evidence. It is the problem with the entire nutroots community they just repeat things to each other over and over again.
Quaker, Remember Ted Kennedy, national Democratic icon with the saintly Kennedy name, talking about the horrors of Robert Bork’s America? Wanna bet if Bork or Thomas has had death threats. H*ll, O’Connor was a moderate. Who’s to say that the action wasn’t by some left wing yahoo out to fix the Court for ’stealing’ the election – especially since the court was balanced and especially since the military was also a target – and the FBI.
Perhaps she’s an anti-war activist who hates the court for 2000, hates the military and, hates the FBI.
Now how would I come up with that?
Because this same crazy woman who sent the cookies that send the same poison goodies to the “chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the director and deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation” was only concerned with Judges?
That’s definitely another connection one could make.
But who knows.
Ooh. Garbled typing. Must hit preview and read….
d:
“I wonder how much more the Republican party is going to continue pushing the idea that judges should be objects of scorn.” with an imbeded link to “objects of scorn”
This implies there will be a direct connection in the link…there is none.
Your problem is with the fact that OW used “objects of scorn” as his anchor? Out my way, sending someone a box of poison cookies qualifies as “scorn.” Your mileage may vary.
Hard line conservatives have, in fact, aimed their vituperation at the judiciary in general, not at a few select targets.
Were these conservatives Republicans? Certainly. Does OW imply that their criticisms put judges in jeopardy? My goodness, yes! Should one expect the linked story to reflect OW’s opinion in precisely his chosen words? That’s silly!
Let’s go back to my painstaking tutorial, step 3:
Now here’s the hard part: OW implies that there’s a connection between the two.
No, that’s not in the story. That’s where Mr. Willis brings together two separate ideas and adds his own commentary with a link to the articles that made him think of it.
It’s called “blogging.”
Dugger:
Remember Ted Kennedy, national Democratic icon with the saintly Kennedy name, talking about the horrors of Robert Bork’s America? Wanna bet if Bork or Thomas has had death threats.
I don’t doubt it. However, we’re discussing something different here. What the House and Senate majority leaders practiced in their “Justice Sunday” telecasts was not opposition to one or two specific nominations, but a vilification of the entire “out-of-control” judiciary, with insinuations that unelected tyrants in robes were destroying our God-fearing American way of life.
Talk like that from party leaders does not lend itself to nurturing a respectful discourse. As you, yourself point out often, loose talk breeds contempt.
As for the other targets, that’s not really germane to the topic. The judiciary as a whole has been targeted by certain conservatives as a peril to the republic. “Patriots” of any stripe may feel moved to oppose the threat by any means necessary.
Tell you what.
I don’t know anything about this woman who was convicted for the cookie caper. But for argument’s sake, let’s concede your point–she very well could be a liberal, anti-war, Bush-hating, ACLU card-carrying, illegal-immigrant-loving, rich-people-taxing moonbat.
What does that have to do with OW’s post?
He opines:
/em>
Whether the lunatic in this case was motivated by the demogoguery of Mssrs Frist and DeLay is immaterial. Fact is, that kind of broad attack on an entire branch of government, poisons (pardon me) the national discourse and promotes the sort of freelance “patriotism” only a nutbar could practice.
In short, even if you assume that this case wasn’t spawned by conservative tirades against judges, you should still recognize that kind of speech as dangerous.
Crap.
The missing quote is:
I wonder how much more the Republican party is going to continue pushing the idea that judges should be objects of scorn.
“However, we’re discussing something different here.”
Exactly.
Still, no one, either side, mainstream, has advocated violence against judges, the FBI or the military. Democrats rhetoric has been replete with allegations of theft, racism, stoeln election, poisoning the enviro, etc. There have been death threats against Rs. Is it possible that, because you understand and sympathize with the rhetoric of the left, you don’t see the same potential causal relationship that you ’see’ with the right. When Newt says it, judges are nearly murdered. When Teddy says it, all is harmony and sweetness. No potential for a little one-sidedness here?
If not, I concede. I’m gone for two days.
When Newt says it, judges are nearly murdered. When Teddy says it, all is harmony and sweetness. No potential for a little one-sidedness here?
Have you even been reading this thread? Or have you forgotten it all?
When Tom DeLay says “judges need to be intimidated”–all judges, when he says the judiciary is a threat to our way of life, he’s opening up a whole different can of worms than a Senator who opposes a specific nominee.
Just so you know, I would not put John Ashcroft’s unprincipled opposition to Judge White’s nomination in the same category with what Mssrs. DeLay and Frist have done.
Sandra Day O’Connor is a liar. She said she received a package “and I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them”. However, “All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer.”
Where’s the “lie,” William?
That O’Connor says she “received a package”? Certainly one with her name on it arrived at the court.
That she “doesn’t know why” the staff decided to have the cookies analyzed? I don’t see any indication that she knows why that decision was made.
Of course, maybe you’re right. Maybe Republican Justice O’Connor is just making it all up. There never were any cookies at all.
Oh, wait. That was Michael Steele…