Friday, July 28, 2006

Conservative Hate Speech

Does anyone honestly think that conservative hate speakers such as Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz , Rush Limbaugh, etc. have nothing to do with the increase in threats made to federal judges? Or is it just a wild coincidence?
WASHINGTON - Threats against federal judges are on a record-setting pace this year, nearly 18 months after the family of a federal judge was killed in Chicago.

… Threats and inappropriate communications have quadrupled over 10 years ago. There were 201 reported such incidents in the 1996 government spending year and 943 in the year that ended Sept. 30, the Marshals Service said.

... Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed in February that she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate “patriotic” killing of the justices.

Read the entire article.


  1. Actually the increase can be from the pandering of the terrorists by the people on the left. It shows that if you threaten to blow a few things up, you can get your way.

  2. You are, of course, referring to Ann Coulter. Because otherwise, your statement made no sense.

  3. A somewhat more reasonable take on the situation includes a few facts NOT mentioned in your excerpt, or perhaps by CNN.

    There has been a large increase of 'pro-se' Federal Court filings--both multiple-file and frivolous.

    In each case, the filer(s) tend to be a bit dotty (to say the least,) and it is the suspicion of practiced court observers that THESE folks are behind a great percentage of the threats. It is statistically reasonable to posit that nut-cases are equally distributed between "right" and "left" audiences, but are also outlier/fringe types, certainly a small percentage of the population as a whole.

    One needs only to examine KOS commentary to determine that the "left" has its wackos. Are you willing to condemn such as KOS, Huffington, and Dean, as well?

    But I suppose you have an agenda which you wish to promulgate. In other times, this would be called "propaganda."

    Propaganda, such as that now being practiced by Xoff/Greater Wisconsin, leads to lack of credibility.

  4. It is not liberals who fret about an "activist judiciary."

    Considering that most comment regarding this comes from conservative speech, it is statistically more likely that threats come from that side of the fence.

    And yes. I condemn any who would use violence of any sort to pave their message.

    As far as my side of this: you're right. I am unabashedly liberal. I make no excuses nor apologies.

  5. The Activist Judiciary about which we are concerned is that one which is doing its damndest to obviate right order.

    See, e.g., Justice D. Sykes' forthright condemnation of Screechin'Shirley and her Supremes of Wisconsin.

    I suppose as long as the Judiciary intends to obviate right order, they may get what they've asked for.

    Too bad.

  6. You know, I don't disagree with you much on this, dad. Except that leaving the state supremes aside, it's Scalia and his toady that are, in my opinion, the activists on the court.

    You can't roll back 200+ years of law and precedent just because your faith says so. Good reason that religion should be kept separate from government.