Schumer Threatens USSC Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh: 'You Will Pay Price - Won't Know What Hit You!

[bendog]

I understand that for you anti-abortionists ANYTHING is fair game to argue against support for abortion rights. But it simply isn't necessary to be stupid enough to think you make some coherent argument for your position by intentionally mischaracterizing a senator's (any senator's) words as a threat. I understand you believe that women should not have a right to an abortion. But THAT is not the issue actually before the Court. The issue is whether a regulation may effectively make the right inaccessible to anyone poor. if the Court says "aye," there will be political consequences for the Court as a whole, because the holding itself is political in that it creates two classes of persons, and THAT at least in theory the Court may not do.

 

[bendog]

Democrats are having a National meltdown and I'm laughing and loving every minute of every day watching it.

I'm actually a conservative lawyer whose career was arguing the equal protection clause in Miss.

 

[OldLady]

Schumer and Pelosi are both real good at flinging around the hyperbole. It is, of course, their job to be partisan, but I like Paul Ryan's demeanor much better than their flapping around like wet hens and squawking a bunch of nonsense.

Yeah. Paul Ryan would just stab you in the back while you weren't looking. As opposed to Schumer and Pelosi.

Awwwww......did Paul hurt you?
He had some dignity and didn't talk like a jerk.

I do think he's out of place telling a SCOTUS how to vote "or else"

I'd be mad regardless of who did it as it's a continued sign our division of powers continues to fade.

SC justices don't "vote," as I'm sure you know. I think ALL of them, including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, call 'em as they see 'em and do their best to keep their opinions out of it. That's their job.

I just think the reaction here is the typical "let's punish the lefties" attitude that comes at every opportunity. No sensible person would consider what he said as a viable threat. No one.

Kavenaugh Thomas and Alito all form their opinions on Roe by virtue of their religion. I mean why would they find a religious exemption to people getting FREE HC via an employer as a basis to challenge covering IUDs. Or employers complaining that the govt mandates all HC plans cover them? If THAT's a right, how come abortion is a right that State's can pass laws making them unattainable unless docs have admitting privileges to hospitals that will NEVER grant the privilege to a doc who openly performs abortions?

Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.

Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?

 

[bendog]

Yeah. Paul Ryan would just stab you in the back while you weren't looking. As opposed to Schumer and Pelosi.

Awwwww......did Paul hurt you?
He had some dignity and didn't talk like a jerk.

I do think he's out of place telling a SCOTUS how to vote "or else"

I'd be mad regardless of who did it as it's a continued sign our division of powers continues to fade.

SC justices don't "vote," as I'm sure you know. I think ALL of them, including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, call 'em as they see 'em and do their best to keep their opinions out of it. That's their job.

I just think the reaction here is the typical "let's punish the lefties" attitude that comes at every opportunity. No sensible person would consider what he said as a viable threat. No one.

Kavenaugh Thomas and Alito all form their opinions on Roe by virtue of their religion. I mean why would they find a religious exemption to people getting FREE HC via an employer as a basis to challenge covering IUDs. Or employers complaining that the govt mandates all HC plans cover them? If THAT's a right, how come abortion is a right that State's can pass laws making them unattainable unless docs have admitting privileges to hospitals that will NEVER grant the privilege to a doc who openly performs abortions?

Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.

Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?

I think it's simply because Kavenaugh has replaced Kennedy. And Roberts is now the deciding vote. And if McConnell had allowed a vote on Garland not only would this not be an issue, but also Justice Ginsburg would have retired.

And while this is JUST my guessing at Schumer, that's just part of his ire. IF the Court actually overturned Roe, then some of us would think that was "bad law" and others "good law." But creating two classes of women (money and no money to get to …. Illinois) to allow access to a const right to control her own body …. THAT will be pretty cynical.

I mean if the Court wants to go back to pre-Roe, and make abortion rights a political issue in EVERY election in Wisconsin, Pa, Mich, NC, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, AZ ….. I'm sure Shumer would say "bring it on." And without meaning violent confrontation is ok.

PS, and Whole Women's Health was a 5-3. (kennedy voted with the maj, and Scalia was dead and Gorsuch not there yet.) I had to look that up. LOL

 

[Doc7505]

Yesterday March 5, 2020 the 'Honorable' Senator Charles Schumer during an abortions rights rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights as the court was hearing arguments in a case over an abortion-related Louisiana law, threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
This is not the first time that this 'Honorable' Senator has used threatening tactics. He has previously threatened president Trump with the same type of rhetoric. It's time for the Senate leaders or someone to cut this guy's corns.


Schumer accused of threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsuch during rally

Mitch McConnell hits Schumer hard for SCOTUS threat, rubs ‘ironic silver lining’ in Dem faces

 

[Rye Catcher]

Stop with the bs. Schumer's an ass but he's never threatened physical violence. I appreciate you're acknowledging Trump's been out of bounds too, though

It didn't have to be a physical threat, he implied consequences to them personally if they decided the "wrong" way. Be it impeachment, civil suit, protesting, or censure, Schumer threatened some action against them based on how he thinks they will decide on the LA abortion case.

Marty, you're being pissy today. You know Schumer wouldn't physically threaten anyone. Even McConnell is above that (-:

But an impeachment or stacking the Court are possibilities. And prior to Gorsuch, the last time a non-Catholic Justice was nominated it was David Souter. And before that it was O'Connor. That's not random selection process. LOL

He threatened them. Trump didn't threaten the other two, he called them out.

Do you really think K or G should be impeached if they rule in favor of louisiana?

They should not be impeached, what will happen is a Million Women March, with a large number of men joining them to picket the Court in cities all across America. R v. W will remain the law, and if the GOP succeeds in removing it they will not only lose elections, the party itself will go the way of the Whigs, for they will lose their favorite wedge issue.

However, the bill itself is nothing more than harming poor women, who can't afford to travel outside of the state of Louisiana, which makes this effort despicable.

You mean a million progressive women march. The progressive desire to claim whole groups as "one of us" is annoying as hell.

How is asking a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital if he performs abortions harming poor women? There are no hospitals in Louisiana?

Dumb question ^^^; of course there are hospitals in Louisiana. That's not the point, the point is it limits access to poor women and has nothing to do with women's health, it is only a bill to make legal abortions more difficult for them.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Maybe Chuckie better be careful what he says, some gun nuts might take offense at his threats if anything should happen to any of the justices?

When RBG retires and Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat,
then when Breyer retires and a nice young conservative takes his seat,
then when Thomas retires and another young conservative takes his seat, then Chuckie can whine.

He can whine, but he can't threaten. Chuckles needs to be thrown out of office, but the hypocrites who put him in office have no morals

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yesterday March 5, 2020 the 'Honorable' Senator Charles Schumer during an abortions rights rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights as the court was hearing arguments in a case over an abortion-related Louisiana law, threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
This is not the first time that this 'Honorable' Senator has used threatening tactics. He has previously threatened president Trump with the same type of rhetoric. It's time for the Senate leaders or someone to cut this guy's corns.


Schumer accused of threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsuch during rally

Mitch McConnell hits Schumer hard for SCOTUS threat, rubs ‘ironic silver lining’ in Dem faces

Plz , plz, let some liberal asshole make the attempt on either SCJ. It would be the final straw that would break the camel's back, I would declare war on liberals and it will end up bad for them....

You dumbass liberals better call that asshat Schumer real quick and tell him to knock off the violent rhetoric or all hell is going to be paid..

 

[Chuz Life]

As he should be censured.

Bravo!

Why should he be censored?

For threatening a supreme court judge and violating the separation of powers between the congressional and judicial branches of government

But your orange whore has already violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Your orange whore has already demanded recusal of members of the judicial branch of government.

Go play your Whut Aboutism game with someone else

schumer is the issue here, not trump

Bullshit. The accusation of violating the separation of powers was already made when I responded to it. Schumer's statement actually does not violate the separation of powers. Your whore has done it constantly. You right-wingers are perfectly content to throw female Americans under the bus to appease your cult friends. You think that it is okay to force female Americans to live under the yoke of right-wing "religious" fascism so that you can get what you want.

Hey snowflake. Don't try that denial shit with me.

Tell it to the Senators who are already moving to censure him.

 

[bendog]

It didn't have to be a physical threat, he implied consequences to them personally if they decided the "wrong" way. Be it impeachment, civil suit, protesting, or censure, Schumer threatened some action against them based on how he thinks they will decide on the LA abortion case.

Marty, you're being pissy today. You know Schumer wouldn't physically threaten anyone. Even McConnell is above that (-:

But an impeachment or stacking the Court are possibilities. And prior to Gorsuch, the last time a non-Catholic Justice was nominated it was David Souter. And before that it was O'Connor. That's not random selection process. LOL

He threatened them. Trump didn't threaten the other two, he called them out.

Do you really think K or G should be impeached if they rule in favor of louisiana?

They should not be impeached, what will happen is a Million Women March, with a large number of men joining them to picket the Court in cities all across America. R v. W will remain the law, and if the GOP succeeds in removing it they will not only lose elections, the party itself will go the way of the Whigs, for they will lose their favorite wedge issue.

However, the bill itself is nothing more than harming poor women, who can't afford to travel outside of the state of Louisiana, which makes this effort despicable.

You mean a million progressive women march. The progressive desire to claim whole groups as "one of us" is annoying as hell.

How is asking a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital if he performs abortions harming poor women? There are no hospitals in Louisiana?

Dumb question ^^^; of course there are hospitals in Louisiana. That's not the point, the point is it limits access to poor women and has nothing to do with women's health, it is only a bill to make legal abortions more difficult for them.

No hospital want's antiabortion protests, and that's what they'd get by granting admission privileges to a doc who works in an abortion clinic in the bible belt.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Isnt judge intimidation a crime? Chuckles is entitled to an ignorant opinion, but not threats

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just 10 days ago there was a furor over Trump asserting that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves in cases involving his admin because their statements about him expose their blatant bias. The POTUS threatened no one and merely pointed to their words as proof of their duty to recuse.

Yesterday Chuckie Shu - the Senate Jester - stood on the steps of the USSC and threatened 2 justices by name. The media reaction? Newsweek just castigated Chief Justice Roberts for having the temerity to call out Chuckie the Clown.

Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts "hurts the notion of judicial independence," say legal experts
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' rebuke of Chuck Schumer over remarks he made at an abortion rights rally risked hurting "the notion of judicial independence" and "public faith" in America's top court, two senior lawyers have said.

Just wait until Republicans get control of the Senate, they'll, um, er, send Schumer a strongly worded letter

"The indictments of felonious Democrats are absent because Republicans are stupid." - Paul Craig Roberts

 

[jc456]

Schummer should be censured and forced to resign. He is criminally insane.

he's just dangerous.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You dumbass liberals better call that asshat Schumer real quick and tell him to knock off the violent rhetoric or all hell is going to be paid

Leftists are "unleashing the whirlwind."

 

[OKTexas]

I understand that for you anti-abortionists ANYTHING is fair game to argue against support for abortion rights. But it simply isn't necessary to be stupid enough to think you make some coherent argument for your position by intentionally mischaracterizing a senator's (any senator's) words as a threat. I understand you believe that women should not have a right to an abortion. But THAT is not the issue actually before the Court. The issue is whether a regulation may effectively make the right inaccessible to anyone poor. if the Court says "aye," there will be political consequences for the Court as a whole, because the holding itself is political in that it creates two classes of persons, and THAT at least in theory the Court may not do.

That's a lie, the law regulates the qualifications of doctors, it has nothing to do with patients.

.

 

[jc456]

Just 10 days ago there was a furor over Trump asserting that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves in cases involving his admin because their statements about him expose their blatant bias. The POTUS threatened no one and merely pointed to their words as proof of their duty to recuse.

Yesterday Chuckie Shu - the Senate Jester - stood on the steps of the USSC and threatened 2 justices by name. The media reaction? Newsweek just castigated Chief Justice Roberts for having the temerity to call out Chuckie the Clown.

Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts "hurts the notion of judicial independence," say legal experts
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' rebuke of Chuck Schumer over remarks he made at an abortion rights rally risked hurting "the notion of judicial independence" and "public faith" in America's top court, two senior lawyers have said.

Just wait until Republicans get control of the Senate, they'll, um, er, send Schumer a strongly worded letter

"The indictments of felonious Democrats are absent because Republicans are stupid." - Paul Craig Roberts

in one sentence.

 

[Doc7505]

Isnt judge intimidation a crime? Chuckles is entitled to an ignorant opinion, but not threats

Schumer always gets close to but doesn't cross that threshold. It's time to censure Schumer at the least or impeach him at most.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Isnt judge intimidation a crime? Chuckles is entitled to an ignorant opinion, but not threats

Schumer always gets close to but doesn't cross that threshold. It's time to censure Schumer at the least or impeach him at most.

Sounded like he crossed a line to me. We need to hold these violent leftists to the same standard they hold us, but I'm not sure how you go about removing someone like this.

 

[iceberg]

Yeah. Paul Ryan would just stab you in the back while you weren't looking. As opposed to Schumer and Pelosi.

Awwwww......did Paul hurt you?
He had some dignity and didn't talk like a jerk.

I do think he's out of place telling a SCOTUS how to vote "or else"

I'd be mad regardless of who did it as it's a continued sign our division of powers continues to fade.

SC justices don't "vote," as I'm sure you know. I think ALL of them, including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, call 'em as they see 'em and do their best to keep their opinions out of it. That's their job.

I just think the reaction here is the typical "let's punish the lefties" attitude that comes at every opportunity. No sensible person would consider what he said as a viable threat. No one.

Kavenaugh Thomas and Alito all form their opinions on Roe by virtue of their religion. I mean why would they find a religious exemption to people getting FREE HC via an employer as a basis to challenge covering IUDs. Or employers complaining that the govt mandates all HC plans cover them? If THAT's a right, how come abortion is a right that State's can pass laws making them unattainable unless docs have admitting privileges to hospitals that will NEVER grant the privilege to a doc who openly performs abortions?

Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.

Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?

this is where i think sooner or later we need to come to a consensus and let it go. so i agree that once we've decided it, why take it up again only when you feel you can reverse it? all that means is later when the SCOTUS tilts again, we bring it back and change it. again.

 

[WEATHER53]

You dumbass liberals better call that asshat Schumer real quick and tell him to knock off the violent rhetoric or all hell is going to be paid

Leftists are "unleashing the whirlwind."

Release the Crackho!