In the comments to a post about Sen. Cornyn's subtle threat against the federal judiciary, James MacLean said:
Maybe someone should ask Sen. Cornyn how he feels about US. vs. Cruikshank.
US vs. Cruikshank (1870) is one you should know about, P6: according to DuBois, it was the legal case that effectively disabled the 14th & 15th Amendments. The most spectacularly convoluted, contorted logic I've ever seen in a majority opinion.
Well, with the assistance of Digby I believe we can deduce his position:
So, one of John Cornyn's schoolmates had wondered if his old acquaintance might have a little problem with the race issue when he ran for Senator against Ron Kirk. Unbenownst to most people, Cornyn had been an avid supporter of George Wallace:
Want an example of Cornyn's beliefs?
"With the continuing concentration of power in the hands of the inept Democratic and Republican parties, it is time for a change," Cornyn wrote in our student newspaper just before the 1968 presidential election. "Cast your vote for a strong America. Vote for George C. Wallace on November 5."
This is as surprising as rain in Seattle during January.
I've noticed for many years there was a large cohort that's been positively ITCHIN' to come out and scream their redneck creed in phonetic spelling. The line quoted by Digby from the '63 interview with George Wallace, that the civil rights "agitators" and their "allies in the government were to blame for terrorism against Black churches, is a little piece of wickedness to which I'm accustomed.
But the interesting thing here to me is the way in which these wingnuts have turned on the judiciary in a way that admits of no logical arbitration whatsoever: the term "activist judge" is invoked to suggest that somehow, this mysterious black box of referees are conniving in the most inconvenient, intellectually demanding way possible. A "liberal judge," for example, has to establsih the principle that will always be invoked the same way, in each and every circumstance, in perpetuity. A legislature that is conspiratorially liberal would have a somewhat easier time of it, an executive branch still more so. But the galaxy of judges, interpreting abstract principles to achieve reliably "liberal" outcomes? Impossible.
The only way you could establish reliably that a judge was an activist would be if a group of other judges, randomly chosen, found the opinion irrelevent to the underlying laws (or constitutional principles). But the whole class of judges is getting tarred as activist. I really think this is simply a polemic for a completete liquidation of the machinery of republican government, seriously.