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…

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.

If not, I concede. I’m gone for two days.

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

didn’t you morons learn anything from the dan rather debacle? You don’t get to invent your own facts to suit your arguments…

Err…did someone claim that this has happened? I missed it.

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 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 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.

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.

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.