[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 37 (Tuesday, April 5, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3235-S3236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          COURTHOUSE VIOLENCE

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity 
for Senator Durbin and me to speak for a few minutes.
  The purpose for my rising is to follow up on some remarks I made 
yesterday, Monday, on the floor of the Senate. The full transcript of 
those remarks, which has to do with judges and recent decisions of the 
U.S. Supreme Court is available, of course, in the Congressional 
Record, but it is also available on my official Web site for anybody 
who would care to read it.
  As a former judge myself for 13 years, who has a number of close 
personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by 
recent acts of courthouse violence. I certainly hope no one will 
construe my remarks on Monday otherwise. Considered in context, I don't 
think a reasonable listener or reader could.
  As I said on Monday, there is no possible justification for 
courthouse violence. Indeed, I met with a Federal judge, a friend of 
mine in Texas, this past week to make sure we are doing everything we 
can to help protect our judges and courthouse personnel from further 
acts of violence. And like my colleague from Illinois, I personally 
know judges and their families who have been victims of violence and 
have grieved with those families. But I want to make one thing clear. I 
am not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of 
courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have 
captured the Nation's attention in recent years.
  My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that 
the judiciary is losing respect that it needs to serve the interests of 
the American people well. We should all want judges

[[Page S3236]]

who 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 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.
  Our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary 
and about judicial nominees must be toned down. Our broken judicial 
confirmation process must be fixed once and for all.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.
  First, let me commend my colleague from Texas. I think his remarks 
yesterday were subject to interpretation which he obviously does not 
want them to be, and I think he has clarified his position, and I am 
glad he has.
  Some of the quotes in the newspapers were difficult to resolve, and 
they seemed inconsistent with my knowledge of him, his service on the 
court of Texas, and his service with me in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I think he would understand, as I do, that I have a personal 
interest in this issue.
  I recommended the nomination of Joan Lefkow to the Federal bench in 
Chicago. On February 28, a bitter plaintiff in a medical malpractice 
lawsuit murdered her husband and her 89-year-old mother. Judge Lefkow 
had dismissed that individual's lawsuit. She was not engaged in 
judicial activism.
  This tragic incident in my home State has been a wake-up call about 
the need for more judicial security. I met with the Director of the 
U.S. Marshals Service to discuss it, and sent a letter to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee today urging that we allocate more funds to 
protect our judges.
  In mid-March, at a trial for rape in Georgia, a man took a gun, 
killed a deputy, a court reporter, and a judge presiding over the rape 
trial.
  In both of those tragedies, the killers were driven not by political 
philosophy but by inner demons. Neither of these incidents appear to be 
politically motivated in any way whatsoever. They were horrible deeds 
committed by deranged men.
  A recent New York Times article indicated that 10 State and Federal 
judges have been murdered since 1970. None were related to the judges' 
politics or ideology. Rather, the murders were committed by embittered 
or mentally ill litigants in emotion-laden cases, many of which 
involved notions of self-esteem.

  I hope Senator Cornyn's clarification now will make it clear to 
everyone who has followed this debate that we need to respect our 
judiciary and its independence, even when we disagree with their 
decisions. I disagreed strongly with the decision of the Supreme Court 
in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 election. But never, ever did it cross 
my mind, nor should it have crossed the mind of anyone feeling as I 
did, that you should take it out on the judges. They are doing their 
duty. I may disagree with them, but to suggest that they should pay a 
price for it is wrong.
  Notwithstanding what I consider to be a very positive statement made 
by the Senator from Texas clarifying his position, I am afraid there is 
another member of Congress from his State who has made even more 
troubling remarks during the past week. Congressman Tom DeLay is the 
majority leader in the House. In response to the death of Terri 
Schiavo, the House majority leader from Texas said:

       We will look at an unaccountable, arrogant, out-of-control 
     judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the 
     President.

  He went on to say:

       The time will come for the men responsible for this to 
     answer for their behavior, but not today.

  Mr. DeLay was asked whether the House would consider impeachment 
against the judges involved in the Schiavo case, and he said:

       There's plenty of time to look into that.

  This is not an isolated statement by Congressman DeLay. He has said 
things such as this time and time again. He has said:

       It's a sad day for America . . . The legal system failed 
     Terri Schiavo.

  According to the New York Times, he said:

       Congress for many years has shirked its responsibility to 
     hold the judiciary accountable. No longer.

  Earlier this year, Mr. DeLay publicly condemned members of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals for ``writing laws instead of interpreting 
laws.''
  When he was asked a few years ago about Federal judges by a reporter, 
he said:

       I woke up one day realizing the judiciary had turned 
     themselves into a regulatory branch.
       We can impeach judges who get drunk, so why not impeach 
     those who get drunk with power?

  In 1997, in reference to Federal judges, he said:

       As part of our conservative efforts against [this] judicial 
     activism, we are going after judges.

  DeLay also said the House Republican leadership was prepared to go 
after activist judges ``in a big way.''
  Then he went on to say in the Houston Chronicle:

       For too long we've let the judicial branch act on its own, 
     unimpeded and unchallenged. And Congress' duty is to 
     challenge the judicial branch.

  He went on to say in the Houston Chronicle in 1997:

       I want to bring one (an impeachment) to prove my point. And 
     I want to make sure that one sticks.

  He said he and other Republicans had a ``whole, big file cabinet 
full'' of judges who may be candidates for removal.
  This type of intemperate rhetoric, sadly, does great harm to the 
reputation of our judiciary, and the relationship between the 
legislative branch and the judicial branches.
  I have felt as strongly, I am sure, as he has about decisions made by 
judges, but those of us in positions of leadership should be careful 
about the words we use, and that the actions we threaten are entirely 
consistent with the law at every moment. What we have heard from 
Congressman DeLay when it comes to judges crosses that line way too 
often.
  I think we understand that deranged people, for reasons beyond 
political speeches, beyond differences on political issues, will do 
tragic things, and often that violence is visited on public servants 
doing their duty as judges serving America.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________