This prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a statement:
Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.Roberts's words are carefully chosen, perfectly framed. It's exactly the judgely thing to say, and he had the time and motivation to come up with the absolutely best thing and he got it right. Whether judges are ever intimidated and whether they do respond to political pressure — that's another matter, but it's nothing for the Chief Justice to put in his statement.
As for Chuck Schumer, I used the word "raved," but I don't really know if he got out of control emotionally and spat out ill-chosen words. Maybe he too chose his words carefully and they were perfect for his well-understood purpose. He knew they'd be noticed and he'd be criticized, but that doesn't make it accidental.
Look at the video embedded above. Schumer is reading his remarks. He's rallying an abortion-rights crowd and he's gesturing and using vocal intonation to stimulate their emotion and to get a big response. So I don't really think he's raving. He's playing his role just as carefully as Roberts played his. And I'll bet he could converse intelligently and at length — perhaps in a cozy room with law professors — about the propriety and effectiveness of political pressure aimed at the judiciary.
By the way, Schumer's "released the whirlwind" is, almost certainly, a reference to the Old Testament verse, "They sow the wind/And reap the whirlwind." He's predicting a "whirlwind" that will come as a result of something the Court has not even done. The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
पोस्ट्स
२४५ टिप्पण्या:
245 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Hmmm...they deal with judges in Mexico the same way.
Maybe they'll try impeaching the justices.
"Reap the whirlwind" was specifically in reference to Kavanaugh's opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Liberals/Democrats and the Lame Stream Media© (but I repeat myself) would be having strokes and crapping their pants if a Republican had done this.
Double standards. If it weren't for them...
The Supreme Court cannot "take away abortion rights", because those rights were established in the US Constitution's penumbra and emanations.
I did see an audience pan. Maybe there are 50 at most listening. I'm unimpressed.
It did not take long before Schumer reaped the whirlwind and started diluting his ire. "I didn't mean the Court, I meant the GOP."
Weird to single out two of the nine justices as if Kavanaugh and Gorsuch can dictate how the Court rules. Of course we know why he singled out those two and not Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. They were appointed by Trump. Again, this has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with Trump.
Although I can appreciate that we are now starting to publicly recognize that Judges are political beasts too. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have shown their stripes. Pretending justice is blind, is just stupid. It's not, and everyone knows it. It's about winning and losing.
Leftwing progs know they can get away with anything. See: Schitt
I’m just glad Trump didn’t say it.
The New York Times would run out of digital ink telling us how increasingly dangerous the president is, and how much closer we’ve moved to a totalitarian state.
The same line from Hosea 8 was used by Billy Graham at Bill Clinton's first inauguration in an invocation and benediction: "Our God and our Father, we thank you for this historic occasion when we inaugurate our new President and Vice-President. We thank you for the moral and spiritual foundations which our forefathers gave us and which are rooted deeply in scripture. Those principles nourished and guided us as a nation in the past, but we cannot say that we are a righteous people. We've sinned against you. We've sown to the wind and are reaping the whirlwind of crime, drug abuse, racism, immorality, and social injustice. We need to repent of our sins and turn by faith to you."
The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
Mob rule?
It's not wrong but still a very generous interpretation. Imagine the different actor. More of that asymmetry...
Schumer is full of himself. Live by the invective, die by the invective (politically), Schumer has exceeded his sell by date.
You sowed the wind for decades to come...
The whole country will reap the whirlwind...
Kavanaugh, during his Senate confirmation
The case being heard has nothing to do with "taking away abortion rights."
The Democrat Party: in the 19th century it was the defender of slavery; in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the defender of abortion. I can't think of any two more hideous things to have as the core tenet of a political party.
There isn't an American institution liberals won't burn to the ground to achieve and hold power. Which is why they are always accusing republicans of it.
Soon enough that will include elections.
The Liberals/Democrats and the Lame Stream Media© (but I repeat myself) would be having strokes and crapping their pants if a Republican had done this.
Double standards. If it weren't for them...
like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
“You sowed the wind for decades to come...
The whole country will reap the whirlwind...”
“Kavanaugh, during his Senate confirmation”
Was Kavanaugh threatening the country if he was not confirmed?
Who knows how many millions of women have been forced to get pregnant and carry pregnancies to term since Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have joined to court? I can't find the data on line, but I take Sen. Schumer at his word that it is a big big big number.
Perhaps a Democrat here can explain to me: How did abortion come to be -literally- the only right now supported by the Democratic party?
The Party would get rid of the right to bear arms, free speech, probably everything in the bill of rights. But not abortion. Why?
You will pay the price, addressed to the two justices, has to mean court packing coming up.
As ye grep, so shall ye grok.
Where's the poster who has a "gusty winds" warning sign for an avatar when you need him?
I don’t see the political pressure other than mobs of screeching womyn in the streets tearing their hair out. The judges do not face election, but they could be impeached. That would certainly be political.
This was a threat directed at two named justices. If shot by a sniper, they wouldn’t know “what hit them”. I wonder what other meaning can be assigned to those words? Or are we to guess at the intended metaphors?
- Krumhorn
Why not lobby the states, where they vote on such things. You'd get a huge compromise spike at about the time that a fetus appears cute on a sonogram. That's how it works out in countries that legislate on it.
SCOTUS requires an all or nothing decision instead, which is never stable.
Folks are stretching sooooo hard to pretend this is not a threat, and that Trump has done the same. Trump has not done the same - he has not issued threats to the Court. And it is a threat - backed by what, I do not know, but it is low and thuggish. Just the sort of thing leftists admire.
in 'better angels' it's mentioned in passing that the previous president, franklyn Mallory had replaced two supreme court justices, because they had been assassinated by the eye of gaza, the proto al queda, that Charles mccarry had predicted more that 20 years before 9/11, I had never considered such a thing, now here we are,
"h": Well, if you can't find it on the internet, it must be a really "...big big big..." number.
this was based on a Louisiana statute, death must be our calling card, and against the innocent, like in herod's day, not the guilty, we make excuses for them,
@Kylos - Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about Kavanaugh's statement.
Now, I wonder if Schumer knows the reference. He mangled it, even when reading a prepared statement.
What a loathsome creature, and his attempt to blame his comments on Trump is just pathetic.
the next time was the pelican brief, about 15 years later, that grisham suggested that a corporation would underwrite the assassination of two supreme court justices, tells something about him,
Hell awaits those who harm little ones. In the meantime, the evil ones have murdered their majority and wonder why they can't Commie-control us all.
Civil war 2 is easy when abortion is thought of. If they can murder for fun (mostly) and profit, so can we is the thinking.
Great world you left us boomers. Don't bitch when you get your whirlwind, you've certainly earned it.
actually this decision would only affect the 5th circuit as I understand it, otherwise daca would have been killed after the 5th circuit voided it,
He's publicly threatening SPECIFIC Judges if they rule in a SPECIFIC way. And he's the minority leader of the US Senate. That makes him the 3rd most important person in the US Congress. This SHOULD Be a big deal. But Schumer is a D, so the MSM will go easy on him. They don't want to hurt one of their own guys.
The Never-Trumpers, libertarians and fake cons are tepidly criticizing Schumer. Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air, said it was no big deal. As for others, Patterico doesn't seem too upset and Romney tweets this:
A reprehensible threat from Senator Schumer is followed by a laughably illogical prevarication. What ever happened to truth and a simple apology?
How vague and perfunctory. Mitt just doesn't have the stomach for criticizing D's, he saves all his Ammo for Trump and others on the Right. Notice no stern words about threatening Judges. And all Schumer needs to do is issue a simple apology and Mitt's cool.
Freder Frederson said...
like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
3/5/20, 8:30 AM
Revealingly the left melted down over Trump's Supreme Court criticism yet the IngaFreders are defending Schumers much more direct and personal attacks. Why if this keeps up people will suspect they have no principles and are solely motivated by partisanship.
Schumer Successfully Blocks Black Woman From N.C. Senate Nom
Wow - dude who got it, looks like a Biden. What is going on?
Threats from a cheap hoodlum. (Yawn)
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the cocks!
[In Kavanaugh's opening statement at his confirmation hearings,] He quoted Democratic leaders who have called him "evil" and "your worst nightmare" and warned he would "threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come."
"I would say to those senators: Your words have meaning," he said. "Millions of Americans listen carefully to you."
"Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything, to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends, to blow me up and take me down?" he asked. "You sowed the wind for decades to come."
"The whole country will reap the whirlwind," he added.
The irony is that the SCOTUS appears predisposed to help Schumer on this case. If they hadnot taken it, a pro-life decision would have stood...
The ultimate fear is red states being allowed to do the will of their voters and outlaw currently sanctioned murders.
Nothing scares progs more than not being in control of others, since they long ago lost control of themselves.
Choke on it, that fear.
Chuckie is protecting a multi billion dollar industry that helps fund his party. And provides six figure jobs for an army of supporters. Having said that, this right wing fascist knuckle dragging rethuglican is all in favor. I know the demographics of who gets the abortions.
I can’t find the statute, but I think I recall from the old days that it is a felony to threaten a federal judge (among other officials). Even if not, Schumer is attempting to obstruct justice by threatening to retaliate against these judges for doing their duty as they see it.
Schumer’s wriggling BS that he is threatening “Republicans” is laughable. He called out the judges by name on the steps of the courthouse!
The idiots who are defending him by comparing this with Trump’s criticism of judges typify today’s Democrats who can’t distinguish between boorishness and criminality. The Democrat Party is an ongoing criminal conspiracy. They no longer bother to disguise it.
Schumer's Response:
“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
Of course, Trump didn't THREATEN anyone. He pointed out that Ginsberg and Sotomayer had publicly attacked him and therefore were Biased and should recuse themselves in cases dealing with Trump matters. Schumer has THREATENED 2 Justices if they don't vote the way he wants. Completely different.
He's a Democrat. If you haven't noticed by now, they can say and do whatever violent thing they want, and they get a slap on the hand. NOTHING will happen to him. Just be careful what you wish for because if it starts going down, the people with the guns will win.
Schumer follows the path set by Obama in April 2016.
It was then the Court was to decide the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
One may recall Obama made several public statements to the effect that any ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented."He called the Court "unelected" and warned that they should not act without "judicial restraint" and overturn "a duly constituted and passed law."
As we know, it worked.
Freder Frederson said...
"like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him."
You couldn't possibly be so stupid as to equate criticism with a direct and unequivocal personal threat.
Or could you...?
It looks like Chuck let his mouth write a check his ass can't cover.
This would have been a much stronger statement, if it had been signed by all NINE members of the SCOTUS. I wonder if the Ginsberg/Sotoamayer refused, or Roberts just did it on his own.
Dems don't want to lobby at the state level because they are not interested in a stable resolution to the abortion matter. It's a political tool they use to rally the rubes and scare the women and children.
The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
Which 'the people'?
Liberal/Left wing Twitter response is interesting. Basically, its "Trump threatened Judges too".
That's it. I'm searching for some sincere Left/liberal attacks on schumer. They're hard to find.
Freder Frederson said...like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
There's a difference between criticizing and threatening, but then YOU know that.
Freder: "like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
Did he threaten them?
But 'sokay, I understand how the basic prog principle applies here: "Your criticism is a threat, my threats are criticism".
The irony is that the SCOTUS appears predisposed to help Schumer on this case. If they hadnot taken it, a pro-life decision would have stood...
Yup, but Schumer wants to make it an election issue.
"You won't know what hit you". Could be a runaway van, could be a stealthy bullet to the brain on your way to your car.
https://mobile.twitter.com/wsj/status/1235528009890873345?s=21&fbclid=IwAR0ynCqDC7pmEWNFQuAqq--j9IyCWOVdOEEkHT6XATxQPvnvLTw9IS5sPGY
Based on my limited reading of the case so far - I'm going to bet the Supreme Court will do what they did in Texas in 2016.
Progressives will be happy. Schumer is still a dickhead.
Collective intellectual dishonesty from the left.
Schumer THREATENED the justices - by name.
Do you understand the difference between "criticize" and "Threaten"?
Justices Kavanaugh and Justices Gorsuch? You idiot, you can say Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but to say Justices Kavanaugh and Justices Gorsuch shows you to be the dim-witted spawn of evil we always knew you were.
Dumb 1600 SAT boy Chuck can't speak right, no wonder he is rallying murderers to fulfill their only goal in life, to become Satan.
Tommy Jeff said :
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Chuck Schumer words could be paraphrase of above!?
Q: who are tyrant and who are Patriots!?
Discuss.
Was Tommy Jeff limited in his perspective - view of TYRANNY as UNITARY TYRANT?
Did he say pre Constitution of USA?
post Constitution of USA - TYRANNY could be legislative, executive or judicial
LA Times this morning ran the story with the headline:
Chief justice denounces 'threatening' remarks
A quick google search of Schumer's stunt yesterday reveals various forms of the predictable and trite spin of:
Republicans pounce .....
Civility for me and not for thee. I don't mind democratic roughhousing but there has to be limits. The threat of assembling a lynch mob is beyond any possible moral limit, beyond the pale of civilised discourse.
Ann trying to cover for her party and pro-abortion crowd.
The chief justice of the supreme court stared on paper that Schumer made DANGEROUS remarks.
You cannot whitewash that!
The real threats are two:
1 Antifa showing up at Conservative judges homes and "protesting" at 2 AM.
2 Schumer and his gang, packing the SCOTUS when they get control of Congress and the White HOuse.
Do people understand that Item 2, is already being discussed in High Democrat circles? Remember liberals/Leftists ONLY support institutions and "Play by the rules' because it benefits them. If they can get away with packing the courts, they will.
The daily vapors.
How will the Corona Virus affect the formation of whirlwinds?
The democrat party IS the mob. Antifa thugs are their approved and sanctioned brownshirts.
No free speech for you.
'Mike Sylwester said...
The Supreme Court cannot "take away abortion rights", because those rights were established in the US Constitution's penumbra and emanations.'
That's not how any of this works. The Supreme Court, as every middle school student knows, enabled abortion for all in Roe Vs Wade. What the Supreme Court gives, it can take away. 'Penumbra' and 'emanations' are both excellent words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Unless a right is in the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights, it isn't a constitutional right.
The "whirlwind" is packing the Supreme Court. That's what Schumer is threatening, not physical violence. The Democrats are dying to do this once they get back into power. And this time around there won't be any principled liberals a la Justice Brandeis and Senate Judiciary Chairman Henry F. Ashurst to stop them.
Hardin:”You will pay the price, addressed to the two justices, has to mean court packing coming up.”
No, otherwise he would not have pretended the remarks were not about the court at all but were about the GOP losing elections. Nor does court packing “hit” them.
The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left; Neal Katyal and Lawrence Tribe, among others from their side, have condemned Schumer’s remarks. Aligning themselves strongly with Chief Justice Roberts’ response.
"So raved Chuck Schumer."
OK, so you have done your observer thing.
Now judge: does the leader of a party who raves this way deserve any further support?
Does abortion justify the tearing down of our institutions? How important is it to you, exactly?
LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist Chuck: "The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left;"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
They just know Schumer went too far and is making them look bad. They have no moral and intellectual integrity. Its all an act.
Like yours here at Althouse.
In a sane country, the Senate would censure Schumer, who would also be paid a visit by the FBI to ascertain whether he was threatening illegal actions against federal officials for their performance of their duties.
But because it's a Democrat defending abortion, nothing will happen.
This is like punch a Nazi. The left is so certain that unleashing the mob will benefit them.
If the people running for nomination to lead Schumer’s party hadn’t gone all-in for infanticide; if Coonman Northam had not given away their game by admitting doctors (like him) should keep newborns “comfortable” while discussing whether to “keep it” or not; and if the entire D caucus hadn’t just voted en mass to allow “accidental live births” to also be aborted, then maybe Chuckie’s extremist rhetoric would have gone unreported as usual. But his remarks are perfectly in keeping with the extreme position that even AFTER birth Democrats want to be able to exercise their “right” to kill babies. It’s barbaric and unreasonable. Once again they would rather be more like the barbaric Chicoms than reasonable Euro Democrats who see third trimester abortions as abhorrent. Why can’t we be more like Sweden and Italy?
The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
That "intense reaction" would go both ways.
Pro-life people would be elated and excited.
"Cuck said...
The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left..."
Said no Republican ever.
Shumer lying his ass off right now. This time, on the Senate floor. He wants them to be in the permanent record of the "most deliberative body on Earth".
'Penumbra' and 'emanations' are both excellent words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Unless a right is in the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights, it isn't a constitutional right.
That's what Mike meant.
All this talk of "paying the price" and not knowing "what hit you" certainly seems to be darkly implying violence. But whatever. Up until a Supreme Court Justice is actually assassinated by some lefty loon, I imagine Chuck Schumer will be just fine both politically and physically.
Relax everyone!
It's not like Schumer said he was going to back Gorsuch and Kavanaugh into a corner while screaming at them and punching them in the sternum.
I mean, had Schumer gone that far around the bend I think we would all recognize we were dealing with an absolute lunatic.
Wouldn't you agree LLR-lefty Chuck?
Just now in the Senate, Schumer stated "...the words did not come out as I intended." When he spoke those words yesterday he was reading from prepared remarks. Does it really take rwo Ivy League degrees to be tripped up by your own words?
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are now just synonyms for "Trump" and "GOP Senators".
Nonapod: "Up until a Supreme Court Justice is actually assassinated by some lefty loon, I imagine Chuck Schumer will be just fine both politically and physically."
Even then it won't be a problem for the dems.
Look how strenuously LLR-lefty Chuck still defends and lauds Dick Durbin after a Durbin/Bernie-bro shoots up republicans at a baseball field.
It turns out criticizing Shumer's threats just ads to the poisonous political atmosphere Trump created.
Just now, Schumer from the well of the Senate, has quadrupled down on his claim that he was aiming at Senate Republicans.
Except for the fact he only singled out two people by name. Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh.
Schumer has alway been a POS, hard to reach a different conclusion now. Direct threats, and a refusal to apologize
I will note he is accusing the Republicans of working, through our existing political structure, to overturn Roe V Wade. My questions to everyone, including Schumer. Exactly what am I supposed to do if I desire to change the rules I am goverened by? If not to work to elect those people that share my obectives and pledge to persue them through the political, and legislative process?
NYT reporting Warren dropping out. No word on who she is supporting.
Schumer really should be censured for this by the Senate. It's totally irresponsible and he knows better. Disgraceful.
iowan2: "NYT reporting Warren dropping out. No word on who she is supporting."
Simply more evidence of misogyny on the part of the highly "moral" and full of "integrity" left.
“The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left; Neal Katyal and Lawrence Tribe, among others from their side, have condemned Schumer’s remarks.”
Chuck Channeling Schumer has forgotten that his namesake is of the left as are the overwhelming majority of the Minority Leader’s amoral defenders.
A more accurate observation: This was too much for even the usually hopelessly partisan Larry Tribe and a couple of other lefties.
Blogger Curious George said...
"Cuck said...
The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left..."
Said no Republican ever.
Probably not... until Trump.
You couldn't possibly be so stupid as to equate criticism with a direct and unequivocal personal threat.
Remember when Adam Schiff read to the audience Trump's contemporaneous tweet criticisms of Amb. Yovanovich and they called it a threat?
That is what these people do. Like Chuck Schumer, they have no shame and no one in the DNC ,media will call them out.
hombre: "A more accurate observation: This was too much for even the usually hopelessly partisan Larry Tribe and a couple of other lefties."
Correct.
It's a transparent positioning meant to fool the rubes into believing Tribe and Katyal aren't in full support of Schumer on this. A temporary rhetorical setback. Nothing more.
Like Hodgkinson, within 48 hours it will be as if it never happened. The whitewashing will begin. History will be Reset, again, and the left/LLR-left will march forward unscathed.
Exactly what am I supposed to do if I desire to change the rules I am governed by?
Settled law is the same as settled science. It can never be questioned.
These are the rules liberals set for the rest of us to live by. Which, cannot be questioned.
If Schumer had any decency he would stand up, take responsibility for his words and apologize unequivocally.
What do you wanna bet that doesn't happen?
LLR-lefty Chuck: "Probably not... until Trump."
LOL
Let that one from our resident FakeCon sink in....
Freder Frederson said...
like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
3/5/20, 8:30 AM
You do recognise that there is a distinct difference between criticising someone, and threatening them? Courts certainly do.
People forget how much political violence there was in America even quite recently. In the early 70s there were nearly a thousand bombings a year. There are a lot of people out there who think it is “our turn” or that they are fighting on the side of history. People who would swell with pride to think they were the whirlwind.
Breaking: Warren is out.
Kai Akker said...
'Penumbra' and 'emanations' are both excellent words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Unless a right is in the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights, it isn't a constitutional right.
That's what Mike meant.
3/5/20, 9:37 AM
No, it's the opposite of what Mike meant, unless you are going to change the clear meaning of his words.
All criticisms are threats!
Threats are just criticisms!
....when convenient for liberals.
Breaking: Warren is out.
Let the bidding begin for her endorsement.
Senate censure requires a mere majority. Too bad there's probably no current majority with enough spine to do it.
Breaking: Warren is out.
"From where the sun now stands, I will run no more forever."
For those wondering, if Warren endorses Sleepy Joe she's going to get laughed at right in her face.
She's Bernie.
Without the bubbly personality.
CJ Roberts must think Schumer’s a Republican to scold him like that.
Meade: "Breaking: Warren is out."
And currently "negotiating" with both Biden and Bernie camps.....which shows just how much "integrity" she has...none.
Which everyone knew all along about Pocahontas, except for the entire NeverTrump FakeCon brigade which bought in early to Li'l Tomahawk and her leftism and proudly declared they would be happy to support her!
"You won't know what hit you" in specific reference to two named Justices isn't what I would call political pressure, Ann. The message is personal, not political. And I have no doubt that Chuck Schumer is happy to have it understood that way.
Similar to the Denver City Council Socialista: if her tweet has the effect of terrorizing Trump supporters away from attending rallies, message received. Pretending people who say "by any means necessary" are bound by rules of civility weaponizes your own civility against itself.
be interesting to see who Warren supports. My money is on sell-out. Biden.
Iman: "CJ Roberts must think Schumer’s a Republican to scold him like that."
This really represents a "blue on blue" situation between Roberts and Schumer.
There is no way Roberts will dare rule against Schumers desires on this subject.
No. Way.
Not. Happening.s
Roberts is going to do what he's done before: whatever it takes to keep the liberals happy on abortion.
The good news for Roberts is that as soon as Trump places another conservative on the SC, Roberts will have the flexibility to do what he really wants to do: go full left.
He's aching to be the next David Souter and its very obvious.
You know you have lost the argument when you have to resort to a whataboutism claim.
Who will Liz back for Great White Father In Washington?
like Trump has never criticized judges, including demanding that RBG and Sotomayer recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
I want to pile on here too. A President voicing his opinion about judges recusing themselves is very common. Some will have a surrogate do the talking, some will issue a statement from the "White House" leaving room for deniability. But it is common. President Trump has publicly criticized Judges by name for their flawed rulings. But that is fine. Not my opinion. That's the Democrat position. See Citizens United. Republicans do the same. Criticize rulings.
Schumer Threatened two Justices by name. An escalation that goes beyond the pale.
I have noticed, that Schumers nasty remarks have yet to prompt Dems to call for civility!
"You won't know what hit you" is the key phrase.
NPR's Nina Totenberg tried to help Schumer weasel out of his statement this morning, but he can't escape that part--although NPR tried to let him by only playing the first part of the statement (omitting that key phrase) in their initial report!
But don't forget: Bulwarky Dispatching Principled True Conservatives say it's your moral duty to make Chuck Schumer the Senate majority leader!
'cause Trump is so awful for violating our sacred norms, you see.
she was aligned with Hillary, which tells you how much of this is for show,
Schumer needs to be impeached for treason and malfeasance.
He threatened 2 justices to influence a judicial proceeding. This is a felony. He was not in the Senate chamber and has no immunity. He should be arrested. Later apologies are not sufficient to quell the risk to the justices he has stirred up.
“...
A more accurate observation: This was too much for even the usually hopelessly partisan Larry Tribe and a couple of other lefties.”
Trying to recall the last time such a thing occurred in TrumpWorld... “Trump’s statement was too much even for Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh...”. There is no line to cross there. There is no line.
I can think of lots of Republicans and conservatives who have criticized Trump excesses. Andy McCarthy doesn’t always lay down for Trump. Rich Lowry doesn’t. Mitt Romney doesn’t. These are the people who possess the moral standing to criticize Schumer. Hannity & Co. do not.
What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric [Justice]!
"You won't know what hit you". Could be a runaway van, could be a stealthy bullet to the brain on your way to your car.
Could be a “bad” meal...
Getting a constitutional amendment through the process is a deliberately difficult process. However, like it or not, the Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding. When they wanted to make up a right to abortion, they did so. That's why the power to nominate justices and federal justices is one of the most important and long lasting powers of the presidency. Obama wanted to fundamentally transform America and he managed to do a lot of damage. Fortunately, he was lazy and left a lot of judicial openings unfilled. With Hillary a sure thing, that wasn't a big deal. When the unthinkable happened and Trump won, it became a huge deal for the Democrats, especially when Republicans in the Senate learned to play hardball.
’These are the people who possess the moral standing to criticize Schumer.’
What does moral standing have to do with it, sugar tits?
'Penumbra' and 'emanations' are both excellent words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Unless a right is in the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights, it isn't a constitutional right.
You may want to actually refer to the constitution. 9th Amendment specifically.
Using a qualifier "constitutional right" is a meaningless distinction. Rights are rights, those enumerated are not superior. Something like abortion would seem to be more entrenched than say the right to keep and bear arms. But they would equal.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Who will Fauxcohantas endorse?
My money, oops I mean Bloomberg's money is on Sleepy Joe.
"The case before the court, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, which we reported on on Wednesday, involves a Louisiana law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals. Abortion proponents argue that it's too strict, while pro-life activists call it common sense."
Would you rather just lie there and die, or would you WANT to be admitted to the hospital if something went wrong. THIS is what Chucky was fuming about yesterday. Is Abortion THAT important??
I think the Senate should censure Schumer.
40 USC §§6134 & 6137(a) make it a federal crime to utter threatening language on the grounds of the Supreme Court.
So Chuck and his "But Trump!" can fuck right off.
The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
I think a handful of people, probably including our blog hostess, would have an intense reaction. On the whole, 21st century feminists, have pushed abortion "rights" way past where 80% or 90% of the population are comfortable. I think that Ashley Judd's nasty women are going to discover -- the hard way -- that aborting a baby past the point of viability is a nonstarter except among the perpetually aggrieved in their part of the neverending culture war.
In the case actually before the Supreme Court, the issue is whether abortion doctors can be compelled to have admitting privileges at a local hospital as a prerequisite to being allowed to perform an abortion. One side argues that things can go really wrong really rapidly during an abortion, no matter how skilled the doctor, and without admitting privileges the woman's life is at risk -- even a short delay in getting the woman into an OR can be fatal. I can see that, because I am aware of at least one case where a delay in getting a woman into surgery resulted in a woman' death. The latest year for which the CDC has published abortion is 2016, and nearly 700,000 abortions were performed in the United States. It doesn't take a very high rate of problem procedures to put thousands of women at risk.
Against that the pro-abortion groups argue that hospitals can act in bad faith and refuse admitting privileges to otherwise qualified doctors just because those doctors do perform abortions. This seems farfetched, but perhaps the abortion clinics can produce actual examples of where this happened. If they can, then that's a powerful argument on their side.
Were Schumer's remarks calculated? Or was this just another case of Chuckie not being able to slow down his mouth when a television camera is pointed at him? A case can be made that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch need to vote in the opposite way Schumer wants in order to assert judicial independence. But perhaps Schumer is merely doing battlespace preparation for when Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat is ready to be filled and he doesn't care a rat's patootie about the merits one way or another of the case in front of the Court.
the left makes rbg into practically a matinee idol, and they treat republican nominees as lower order protozoa at best,
daskol said...
Dems don't want to lobby at the state level because they are not interested in a stable resolution to the abortion matter. It's a political tool they use to rally the rubes and scare the women and unaborted children.
3/5/20, 9:00 AM
Slight correction, don't mention it...
Perhaps my cynicism, but I thought Schumer’s rant was a “Look, a squirrel!” moment, for two reasons:
1) take attention away from the DNC rigging the primary for Joe
2) try to unify the Dems with one of their strongest unifying msgs among women.
He threatened 2 justices to influence a judicial proceeding. This is a felony.
Is it? Interesting.
Of course swamp creatures are above the law so...
He threatened 2 justices to influence a judicial proceeding. This is a felony.
PB has raised the salient point in this issue.
I think the Senate should censure Schumer.
I agree.
enough of his threatening garbage.
"Cuck said...
Probably not... until Trump."
How does praising two ultra liberal law prof's by name and the left as a whole hurt Trump? Or have anything to do with Trump?
Smart move by The Fake Indian. Now, she can spend her days in the kitchen with her husband drinking firewater.
Even in the midst of debate Bob Boyd drops a gem at 10:00. Nice shout out to Chief Joseph!
Even in the midst of debate Bob Boyd drops a gem at 10:00. Nice shout out to Chief Joseph!
Wendybar said:
Would you rather just lie there and die, or would you WANT to be admitted to the hospital if something went wrong. THIS is what Chucky was fuming about yesterday. Is Abortion THAT important??
3/5/20, 10:17 AM
It also puzzles me that pro-abortion people insist abortion is healthcare and yet they want FEWER safeguards and LESS supervision then they demand for medical care generally.
That's why a creature like Gosnell was able to flourish for so long.
Really, what is the reasoning behind this opposition? I suspect that rabid pro-aborts really don't want to think about what goes on behind those particular closed doors.
Running Squaw see no path forward
Bad Medicine
many moons before Squaw run again
but Bernie heap good man
Biden lying dog-faced soldier.
“...if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.”
We would simply go back to every state making its own abortion laws, and only one or two at most would completely outlaw it. If you were living in one of those states and wanted an abortion, you would just go over the state line. So how would the right to an abortion be taken away?
FWIW, I take Schumer's "You have released . . . .," past tense, to mean for what they had already done -- agreeing to hear the case.
I assume this asswipe has bodyguards. Sure would be nice if they turned on him. Interpret that any way you want Chuckie.
Trump should hold a beer summit and make Schumer come to the WH and make nice with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Get a restraining order against Schumer and put an ankle bracelet on him.
200 yards away from the supreme court.
The supreme court at the moment has five justices and four injustices. Schumer wants to increase the number of injustices.
NY Bar Rule 8.4 -Misconduct - Rule(e)(1-2): "A lawyer shall not
(e) state or imply an ability:
(1) to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body or public official; or
(2) to achieve results using means that violate these Rules or other law;"
LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist Chuck: "Trying to recall the last time such a thing occurred in TrumpWorld... “Trump’s statement was too much even for Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh...”. There is no line to cross there. There is no line."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Show us where Trump crossed the Schumer Call For Direct Violence line.
Go ahead dummy. We'll wait.
It's good to see LLR-lefty Chuck back in a better mood now that he is doing what he loves best: attacking conservatives.
Agree with Breezy, it was a calculated diversion for what was/is a slow motion train wreck of a primary season for the democrats. Democratic playbook 101. You want to grab headlines accuse republicans of trying to take abortion away. Schumer just put more mustard on that attack than usual. Stretching out how long it will take for a full apology causes even more of a distraction and smoke screen.
Against that the pro-abortion groups argue that hospitals can act in bad faith and refuse admitting privileges to otherwise qualified doctors just because those doctors do perform abortions. This seems farfetched, but perhaps the abortion clinics can produce actual examples of where this happened. If they can, then that's a powerful argument on their side.
The blog hostess seems a bit overwrought on the topic. I know of no hospital, except perhaps a few Catholic hospitals, that would refuse admission to an abortion complication. Almost all abortions are outpatient procedures. The issue is abortion complications and the quality of providers who have 100% abortion practices.
Eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned because of the "very late term" infanticides being permitted/encouraged by the political left. Abortion with some limits will be legal under state laws just as it was in California before Roe v Wade. As is usual these days, the left pushes until it meets resistance. There is no common sense left there.
Nothing, not even a censure, will happen to Schumer. First, he is a Democrat, and, second, he is a Senator.
However, if little people you or I had made the same public statement in front of the Supreme Court, we would receive a visit from either the FBI or the US Marshal Service at a minimum. Schumer's words are most easily interpreted as a direct threat against two justices regarding a pending case- this is a clear violation of federal law, and a nobody making this threat would definitely be risking federal prosecution, and sweating it out right now in an interview room somewhere while his entire life is turned upside down by law enforcement. Double standards.
This would have been a much stronger statement, if it had been signed by all NINE members of the SCOTUS. I wonder if the Ginsberg/Sotomayer refused, or Roberts just did it on his own.
Exactly. This lack of support from the Democrat justices points distinctly to the politicization of the judiciary by the left. Every time I read a federal court ruling I always look at the name of the judge and who appointed him/her. Invariably, the Dem judges rule based on politics, not the rule of law. It is truly sickening, and Roberts is just trying to paper over this politicization of the judiciary by the left by saying, for example, that there are no Obama or Clinton judges. Of course there are!
Inga said...
“You sowed the wind for decades to come...
The whole country will reap the whirlwind...”
“Kavanaugh, during his Senate confirmation”
Was Kavanaugh threatening the country if he was not confirmed?
No, try reading the full context, and for comprehension, not talking points. Why would he threaten the whole country? He feared the Democrats' overheated rhetoric would cause a whirlwind. What form does he think this might take? He gives examples. Verbal threats. Threatening emails. False allegations. In other words, he is not threatening. The whirlwind he is concerned about is action by people on the political left.
Schumer should be impeached over.... "Obstruction of justice."
Isn't that the thing?
You won't know what hit you". Could be a runaway van, could be a stealthy bullet to the brain on your way to your car.
I predict kissing assaults. Kissing with coronavirus. Massive licks on the lips, the nose, and the ears.
I noticed there is not a "Civility BS" tag.
For those of you who don't see the difference between requesting recusal and making an outward threat, I'm sure you probably know at least one lawyer. Give them a call. Ask them if they have ever considered filing a motion to recuse because they felt the judge was biased. Now ask them if they ever considered marching into court and telling the judge that he will personally pay if he rules a certain way. Compare and contrast their answers.
Francisco D said...
Who will Fauxcohantas endorse?
The same person Bernie is going to endorse.
Warren wont drop until Biden is clearly going to win and it is time for unity.
Bernie will go along meekly because his job is to fool the rubes.
Actually one of the big issues in the case is whether abortion clinics can represent pregnant women having abortions, when the litigation is in regard to health standards that protect women.
Abortion clinics have a financial reason to object to health standards--numerous industries object to regulations that cost money--and so it's strange for courts to hold that abortion clinics always speak for what's best for patients. One major point of O'Connor's opinion in Casey was to mock that idea.
The woman seeking the surgery and the clinic providing the surgery are not (always) similarly situated.
That's one of the Big Lies in abortion jurisprudence, that this litigation involves women. Except for Roe v. Wade itself, the litigation almost always involves abortion doctors and clinics.
One more piece of evidence that demonstrates that, at least since the French Revolution, the left has always had a strange attraction to violence.
Drago said...
There is no way Roberts will dare rule against Schumers desires on this subject.
Roberts said something just as Mitt Romney and Lawrence Tribe had to speak up.
I wouldn't doubt that Roberts and Schumer worked this out before hand to pretend they are not completely ideologically aligned.
These are the people who possess the moral standing to criticize Schumer. Hannity & Co. do not.
Of course, our very own Chuck, who is doing as much as possible to empower moral cretins like Schumer, somehow thinks that he had the moral standing to criticize Trump.
It is to laugh.
Democrats are addicted to abortion. And, they get upset if that addiction is curtailed.
Chuck said...The moral and intellectual integrity of the Left; Neal Katyal and Lawrence Tribe, among others from their side, have condemned Schumer’s remarks.
Condemning threats of violence against a Supreme Court justices. That's what passes for moral and intellectual integrity on the left.
Shame so few lefties can muster it.
2) try to unify the Dems with one of their strongest unifying msgs among women.
There is no significant difference between men and women on this issue. And I suspect that fewer and fewer women support abortion rights now that they can see via in utero photos that an actual baby is at stake. I suspect many men favor abortion because it gets them out of embarrassing situations.
All these lefties and traitors like Mittens condemn Schumer. Roberts and all...
And tomorrow they will wink and nod and go right back to pushing the same exact policies just like they are giving a wink and a nod to the political violence they are sponsoring.
It is almost certainly a mis-representation of the OT Bible passage of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Releasing the whirlwind is the opposite of reaping--reaping is a kind of gathering in of a harvest. And this is an absolutely terrible mixed metaphor as it is spoken. What is the price of a released whirlwind? How much does that cost?
It is also a reference to Kavanaugh's speech to Congress, but it is completely mangled. Kavanaugh referenced the OT correctly, as you would expect someone from his background to do.
I see these mis-references to Biblical stories and verses all the time. I think it's because the speechwriters are young and have had no education that touches the Bible, even as literature. Too bad. You lose out on so much beautiful language by jettisoning the Bible from life.
The crowd shots in that video were interesting. Schumer appears to be addressing a small, entirely female group, many of whom are wearing costumes. I especially liked the one who looked like a character from a Dr. Seuss book, shaking her little, pink head "Nooooo, noooo!".
What punishment fits the crime? Removing all federal protection from Schumer and his office. No Marshalls, no Secret Service, no federally funded private security. See if he feels the same way.
Dahlia Lithwick in Slate roughly equated Schumer's and Kavanaugh's statements. I think this is stupid.
Schumer inappropriately singled out two justices, and his statement sounds threatening. Kavanaugh's statement was quite different and made in the spirit of self-defense.
I agree with HoodlumDoodlum. "You won't know what hit you" was the especially over-the-top phrase.
Against that the pro-abortion groups argue that hospitals can act in bad faith and refuse admitting privileges to otherwise qualified doctors just because those doctors do perform abortions.
If this is a major problem, why haven't Democratic legislators simply made it illegal?
Bears repeating:
Blogger JCA1 said...
"For those of you who don't see the difference between requesting recusal and making an outward threat, I'm sure you probably know at least one lawyer. Give them a call. Ask them if they have ever considered filing a motion to recuse because they felt the judge was biased. Now ask them if they ever considered marching into court and telling the judge that he will personally pay if he rules a certain way. Compare and contrast their answers."
The speed and directness of Justice Roberts response was telling. Schumer is way over the line.
So, when does Schumer get arrested for his crime?
18 U.S. Code § 115(a)(1)(B):
Whoever threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
Just checking in: Has LLR-lefty Chuck given us an example of Trump calling for or making direct threats of physical violence against named political opponents yet?
I mean, LLR-lefty Chuck claims to be an Eleventy-jillion $/Hr Legal Beagle so I wouldn't expect him to make such a claim against Trump as he has without a specific example to back up such a claim....
....but then again, I do recall LLR-lefty Chuck explicitly saying he comes to Althouse to lie about and smear Trump.
Once I remember that it all makes sense.
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...
Really, what is the reasoning behind this opposition? I suspect that rabid pro-aborts really don't want to think about what goes on behind those particular closed doors.
3/5/20, 10:40 AM
Ding, ding, ding....Exactly!!
Quoting scripture is rich coming from the mouth of a baby killer party member
I would have called it an anti-life crowd.
Steven said...
So, when does Schumer get arrested for his crime?
The threat is just vague enough that he won't be arrested. But he should be censored by the Senate.
well we saw stem express and the campaign, against dalieden,
“ Quoting scripture is rich ”
Nothing like as funny as quoting laws. Why do you to us speak of laws? We carry senate credentials.
Schumer is a raving threat.
remember!
it's a LIVING Constitution!
It Means, WHATEVER a majority on the court DECIDE it means....
UNLESS what they decide is Not what the democrat party WANTS it to mean
One Nation, under the democrat party
Indivisible
With Rulings and Penumbras for ALL
GingerBeer said...
Just now in the Senate, Schumer stated "...the words did not come out as I intended." When he spoke those words yesterday he was reading from prepared remarks. Does it really take rwo Ivy League degrees to be tripped up by your own words?
To be fair, by directly quoting his prepared words; you were taking him out of context
Clearly, In Context; he meant those words to be heard by His side, and not the other
@tim maguire
Fine. Then let's go to 40 U.S. Code § 6134:
It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.
Nonapod said...
All this talk of "paying the price" and not knowing "what hit you" certainly seems to be darkly implying violence. But whatever. Up until a Supreme Court Justice is actually assassinated by some lefty loon, I imagine Chuck Schumer will be just fine both politically and physically.
3/5/20, 9:38 AM
Would he not understand that two can play at that game?
48 years since Roe, and people like Schumer haven't found the time to pass a Federal law allowing abortion, yet alone a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right. Makes me suspect the issue is preferred, over the actual rights involved.
"The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights. "
The Court is not going to take away abortion rights. The Court may rightfully reaffirm the non-controversial view that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, and, thereby, allow the people, thru ordinary political and democratic process, to decide the issue.
The dead-pan assertion by our hostess that abortion is a **right** is telling...
I'm a staunch supporter of States rights and have a very libertarian view of individual rights (ie, as long as what you're doing doesn't harm anyone else, then do whatever you want with your own body), but like the qualified right to vote, the only thing legally separating abortion from murder is an arbitrarily defined age threshold...
It used to be that abortion was verboten past the 1st trimester, and now the left want to be able to allow a perfectly viable baby to die (ie kill it) up to and after birth (from a botched procedure)... the word we used to use for this was **infanticide**, now its the basis for Instagram and Tik-Tok parties...
What would poor, dear women -- victims all -- do without noble, upstanding men like Chuck Schumer to protect them from unprincipled sleazebags like Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा