I'm confused

Glenn Reynolds and Joe Gandelman are blasting Senator John Cornyn.  Gandelman says:

Sen. Cornyn has now seemingly given a perfect mental fig leaf for every nut on the right OR ON THE LEFT who wants to physically take out a judge (or the judge's family) with whom he or she disagrees. All Cornyn needed to add in his execrable remarks was the "Twinkie defense."

He and Glenn both seem to think that Cornyn is advocating or threatening violence against judges.  If he was doing so, that would, of course, be hideous.  But here is, as far as I can figure out, the offending comment:

And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't see anything here that threatens or advocates violence against judges.  In fact, Cornyn specifically says that there would be no justification for any such attacks.  All Cornyn is doing here, the best I can tell, is expressing a fear that judicial activism might anger some people to the point of violence. 

I don't understand where he's coming from, but I don't understand what's supposed to be so wrong about this.  Since when did warning that something might happen and threatening to make it happen become the same thing?  Yes, it's true, threats are sometimes clumsily disguised as dispassionate warnings, but I don't see any evidence of that in this case.

What am I missing?

Comments

This comment was removed because it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with this post. This is a reminder that it is my policy to remove all non sequiter comments.

Please, if you leave a comment here make sure it relates to the post at hand. If you want to talk about stuff that I'm not talking about, please get your own blog and do it there.