Chuck Schumer threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer threatened two Supreme Court Justices at a rally today outside of the Supreme Court: "You will pay the price.. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions"

Schumer Claims Conservative Supreme Court Justices Will ‘Pay the Price’ If They Rule against Abortion Advocates | National Review

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday warned Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh regarding a case on abortion.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If we're on the subject of the left calling out their own, the "liberal" media sources I've viewed last night and this morning appear critical of Schumer's comments.

Dude, don't fall for the "OMG, liberals are hypocrites" cry from the right. The Dems created the "circular firing squad", they love to show that they will eat their own.

 

[wardorican]

Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts "hurts the notion of judicial independence," say legal experts

The ex-U.S. attorney Joyce Vance also accused Chief Justice Roberts of "permitting so much from Trump to go unacknowledged" after he rebuked Schumer.

www.newsweek.com

 

[coldseat]

The moment I heard the clip, I thought is was a threat that was empty, hollow and toothless to make because what exactly is he going to do? He had no power to stop their appointments and he has no power to impeach and remove them from office. I imagine most people rolled their eyes like I did, so I highly doubt he's inciting anybody to violence. When he had his chance to make a bigger issue of the Garland nomination, he largely floundered. They should have held up all business in the House and Senate until Garland got his Senate hearing.

He would have spent his time much better making the point of no matter what these SC justices claim when they decide these cases on precedence and law, this new breed of conservative justices inevitably inject their personal beliefs in their decisions (as they undoubtedly will when they ignore the precedence made in overturning the Texas law that was decided 4 years earlier). That's why it's so important to appointment SC justices who aren't so religiously compromised that they can't see past their personal beliefs on abortion in order to make decisions appropriately.

If the SC justices where honestly deciding these abortion cases, 95% of them would be thrown out on a pre-textual basis. These law have nothing to do with protecting women, health standards or any other justification that is given when they're argued in court by their supporters. They are all aimed at one thing, making it as hard as humanly possible for a women obtain an abortion. The most effective way to do that is to make is so hard for medical professionals/clinics to obtain a license to perform these abortions that they have to shut down, thus eliminating the option for women entirely. That's the reason they're enacted into law, but you never hear that in court. And if you do, it's ignored by those with other objectives.

 

[MT15]

I’ve read people saying he wasn’t talking about the justices, but rather Republicans in the Senate reaping the consequences. It doesn’t make any sense applied to the Justices, since they aren’t elected.

I did note that Roberts hasn’t said a word about Trump talking crap about other judges recently, esp the Stone case. Seems he should comment on both to me. 🤷🏼‍♀️

 

[JimEverett]

I am not sure why Judges/Justices should be immune from political criticism? Especially given that all sides use the Courts in an effort basically to set policy.

And I didn't take this as Schumer threatening the Justices with physical harm or anything like that. I can get the criticism from using too harsh of language (although I disagree) but not from the standpoint of politicizing, or something along those lines, the judiciary.

 

[st dude]

Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts "hurts the notion of judicial independence," say legal experts

The ex-U.S. attorney Joyce Vance also accused Chief Justice Roberts of "permitting so much from Trump to go unacknowledged" after he rebuked Schumer.

www.newsweek.com

Justice Roberts went down a notch in my book too. Trump regularly berates judges, including Supreme court judges. Where was the outrage from Roberts then?

I personally think Roberts should keep his mouth shut in both instances. These so called threats to the judiciary by Trump and Schumer are mostly political rhetoric. When a Justice comments on one, and not the other, he or she damage the reputation of the court and its independence.

That said, I always try to be consistent. Ginsberg has made comments I also see as inappropriate by the court. I am just not a guy where one justifies the other. Trump was wrong in calling out judges. That's not justification for Schumer to do it to.

Ginsberg has made comments that seem political to me. That's no justification for Roberts. Whats wrong is wrong, no matter the party.

Schumer's comments were inappropriate. But I don't need Roberts to tell me that. Now he has set a precedent. Will he remark on every inappropriate comment a politician makes in the future about the Court, or will he just complain about comments from the opposite party to the president who appointed him?

 

[JimEverett]

Roberts condemned Trump a year or so ago when Trump talked about "Obama" judges

 

[SaintForLife]

I’ve read people saying he wasn’t talking about the justices, but rather Republicans in the Senate reaping the consequences. It doesn’t make any sense applied to the Justices, since they aren’t elected.

I did note that Roberts hasn’t said a word about Trump talking crap about other judges recently, esp the Stone case. Seems he should comment on both to me. 🤷🏼‍♀️

That's clearly spin from Schumer. Schumer specifically said the names of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Huge stretch and pretty silly for Schumer to now try to claim he wasn't talking about the people he named specifically.

 

[SaintForLife]

It’s the ‘speck vs plank in the eye’ issue
st dude (and others) are asking you if it’s the behavior you have problems with or the person
If it’s the behavior then call out the behavior whenever you see whomever engaging in it
otoh, if you’re more worried about the speck in someone else’s eye rather than the plank in ‘your own’ then your opinion is at best highly suspect

Oh and news flash - the ‘Left’ has no issue calling out it’s own - usually along center/left vs progressives
But intramural Left checking happens often (if for no other reason than the competition is much better *shades*)

Just so I have this new rule correct, we aren't supposed to criticize someone if we haven't made previous posts criticizing the other side right? Even if we held that opinion, but we didn't make a post about it then it doesn't count right?

So you aren't allowed to criticize Trump anymore for pushing conspiracy theories because you never criticized the Democrats, the media(especially CNN/MSNBC), and left leaning posters on the MCB for pushing the discredited Trump Russia conspiracy for 3 years. Did I get it right?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Just so I have this new rule correct, we aren't supposed to criticize someone if we haven't made previous posts criticizing the other side right? Even if we held that opinion, but we didn't make a post about it then it doesn't count right?

So you aren't allowed to criticize Trump anymore for pushing conspiracy theories because you never criticized the Democrats, the media(especially CNN/MSNBC), and left leaning posters on the MCB for pushing the discredited Trump Russia conspiracy for 3 years. Did I get it right?

No, by a quick count yo got it wrong about 4 times

 

[SaintForLife]

No, by a quick count yo got it wrong about 4 times

Oh okay. Can you spell out the rule for me so I know for future reference?

 

[MT15]

That's clearly spin from Schumer. Schumer specifically said the names of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Huge stretch and pretty silly for Schumer to now try to claim he wasn't talking about the people he named specifically.

well it wasn’t Schumer who said that. I didn’t say he said that it was just random comments online.

 

[MT15]

Oh okay. Can you spell out the rule for me so I know for future reference?

Just grow up, geesh. You guys are so freaking sensitive.

 

[Beach Friends]

Just grow up, geesh. You guys are so freaking sensitive.

Now how are you going to tell someone else to grow up when your political opinions are indistinguishable from Joy Behar's?

 

[SaintForLife]

Just grow up, geesh. You guys are so freaking sensitive.

Sensitive? Nah. It is getting hard to keep up with the rules you all come up with for people who posts that you don't like.

 

[MT15]

I have zero clue what Joy Behar thinks about anything. I’ll assume that’s a personal insult though, I suppose. Unless you can clarify.

 

[Beach Friends]

I have zero clue what Joy Behar thinks about anything. I’ll assume that’s a personal insult though, I suppose. Unless you can clarify.

Personal insult? Nope, it was nothing like telling someone to grow up. More of an observation. And didn't you tell me that you enjoyed watching the View? I may have you confused with someone else.

 

[MT15]

No, that wasn’t me. I am a bit amused that you seem to know what Behar thinks about current events though.