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

[Polishprince]

i have no reason to hate Cryin Chuck. i just instinctively dont like that fellow!

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

I really think that horsewhipping Sen. Schumer would be more effective at discouraging weak brained individuals from following in his footsteps than imprisonment.

 

[whitehall]

The bottom line is that in a free society and the greatest democracy on the planet you can't let a member of congress threaten the Supreme Court with physical violence or political retribution in considering a case. That's basic stuff. The question is whether the Justice Dept has the balls to indict a sitting senator.

 

[Polishprince]

The bottom line is that in a free society and the greatest democracy on the planet you can't let a member of congress threaten the Supreme Court with physical violence or political retribution in considering a case. That's basic stuff. The question is whether the Justice Dept has the balls to indict a sitting senator.

The DOJ had no problem with indicting and trying Sen. Ted Stevens, and that was when Stevens was running for reelection and was 3rd in the line of succession for the Presidency.

 

[Markle]

He will be held accountable about the same time Nixon heads to the Hague for Cambodia, Bill Clinton admit he is a sex addict, George W. Bush admits he knew the intel was wrong on Iraq, Barack Obama admits the Video did not cause Benghazi and Trumo admits he loves to lie just to get his base going...

When all that happens then and only then I will wake with Ana De Armas naked in my bed and Chuck Schumer will be held accountable...

But only if Ana De Armas is naked and wild in my bed!

Listen to yourself. Nobody ever threatened the life or the political security of a sitting Justice of the Supreme court to extort a decision since maybe the Civil War.

Not surprised that Schummer would be the first then.

 

[Markle]

What is interesting is that he claimed he was threatening political retribution. But that is nonsense since Supreme Court justices have no challenge to their position, they are in for life. So the ONLY thing he could have meant was a PERSONAL PRICE that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would pay.

In other words, physical violence and/or riots.

 

[Polishprince]

He will be held accountable about the same time Nixon heads to the Hague for Cambodia, Bill Clinton admit he is a sex addict, George W. Bush admits he knew the intel was wrong on Iraq, Barack Obama admits the Video did not cause Benghazi and Trumo admits he loves to lie just to get his base going...

When all that happens then and only then I will wake with Ana De Armas naked in my bed and Chuck Schumer will be held accountable...

But only if Ana De Armas is naked and wild in my bed!

Listen to yourself. Nobody ever threatened the life or the political security of a sitting Justice of the Supreme court to extort a decision since maybe the Civil War.

Not surprised that Schummer would be the first then.

Chuck U. Schumer's threats against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are actually realistic. The Fake Impeachment of Donald J. Trump shows that people can be impeached even when they have committed no crime at all, only that they are accused of a subjective "abuse of power" bullshit.

The only way really to stop this is for the Democrat members of the SCOTUS to stand in solidarity with the R's and vote to stick one to Schumer by supporting the law of Louisiana.

 

[Markle]

Link to Trump threatening SCOTUS justices or STFU. And no, Stupidus, asking them to recuse themselves after they have made PUBLIC comments against him is not the same thing so don’t even try that lie.

Are you really going to try and equate asking a judge to recuse themselves with inciting people to riot and physically harm two Supreme Court Justices? Did you bother to read your post over before hitting the "POST REPLY" button?

 

[otto105]

i have no reason to hate Cryin Chuck. i just instinctively dont like that fellow!

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

I really think that horsewhipping Sen. Schumer would be more effective at discouraging weak brained individuals from following in his footsteps than imprisonment.

In a trumpian world, the weak brained work for him. There the most loyal.

 

[beautress]

No, but he’s going to pay in some way. My guess is he’ll be censured. He deserves to lose this job though.

Only if he is impeached for threatening Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Polishprince]

In a trumpian world, the weak brained work for him. There the most loyal.

"Trumpian world" is a synonym for Realville . As opposed to the make-believe world of liberalism and socialism.

 

[OKTexas]

yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.

what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

Case with same scenario in Texas a couple of years ago. SC said they couldn't force abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

And that makes sense to you? No doctor should be able to perform out patient procedures and just wash their hands of the consequences. If there are complications they should be responsible for the follow up care.

.

When has it ever happened that a doctor who performs out-patient procedures not been responsible for follow-up care? It's the doctor in the ER who makes the call for a patient who arrives in the ER. Believe me. My late father was in the ER on a regular basis when he was elderly and I spent hours in the ER with him waiting for a bed to open up "upstairs." I drove my father to the ER once when he could not get out of the car to go in for a doctor's appointment and I just arrived at the ER screaming that he was out in my car having a heart attack and the staff rushed out and got him. He ended up in the ICU. I got bills from doctors who I never heard of.

This whole "admitting privilege" thing is a total hoax. A fraud. No hospital turns away a patient who needs care. If something bad had happened in the course of my out-patient colonoscopy, I would have been admitted to the hospital by the ER doctor if I needed it.

Poor little dumb commie, many women have been transported directly from abortion mills to hospitals. If the doctor who performed the abortion doesn't have privileges he can provide no care in that facility. The abortionist just fire and forget and let others deal with their mistakes.

.

 

[OKTexas]

yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.

what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

 

[Zorro!]

Last I heard it was against the law to try to influence the decisions of a judge with physical threats or political extortion. It's clear that the threats weren't just some random generic political rhetoric because Schumer named the Supreme Court Justices. Even in the most liberal assessment of Schumer's conduct would indicate that he tried to extort a favorable decision from the highest court by using physical or political threats.

Schumer is an unindicted felon. He was clearly trying to bully Supreme Court Justices by name in order obtain the judicial decision he wanted.

Citing Rising Political Violence, Hawley Moves to Censure Schumer Over Threats to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.

Time for Schumer to resign.

On Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a resolution to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) over his threat against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Fourteen other senators cosponsored his resolution, which warns about the uptick in political violence and condemns Schumer "in the strongest possible terms."

On Wednesday, Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name in an attempt to bully them into a pro-abortion ruling in a case currently before the Supreme Court.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Schumer told a crowd of abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court. "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."​

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts immediately made a rare public statement condemning Contemptible Schumer's remarks.

"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," he wrote. "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."​

"[T]he statements of Senator Schumer could be read to suggest a threat or call for physical violence against 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," the resolution states. "[A]ccording to the Institute for Economics and Peace, political violence in the United States has increased over the last decade."

Hawley's resolution noted that the U.S. Marshals Service investigated "4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary" in 2018 alone and that four federal judges have been targeted and murdered since 1979.

"Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, 'We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics' and that 'the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised.'"​

Therefore, the Senate

"(1) censures and condemns in the strongest possible terms the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his threatening statements against Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; and
(2) calls on all members of the Senate to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary."​

In addition to Hawley, Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) are all original cosponsors of the resolution.

In this time of political violence, where representatives have been shot at on the baseball field, it is important for both Republicans and Democrats to condemn threats like this.

 

[SAYIT]

when has Trump threatened a judge?

AND we seem to be OK with "whataboutism" again. funny how that works.

Slade has a bad case of the partisanship at which he rails.

"Don't do as I do … do as I say!"

It would be good if you did both but I don’t care... you can do whatever the hell you want. I’m just calling it like I see it.

There's a big difference between disagreeing and threatening two Supreme Court Justices with violence.

"...You will pay the price … they won't know what hit them..." - Chucky the Clown

If any regular American said such things about two named USSC justices we'd lose our job and get a visit from the FBI guys.

As Schumer just months ago said, "no American is above the law … not even the president!"

Nor the Senator from Brooklyn, Stupid Chucky … you're under arrest.

live by your own laws or STFU. either way, problem solved, huh?

well, only if they'd do it.

You know the deal, Ice … do as they say, not as they do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened two conservative Supreme Court justices as he spoke at a pro-choice rally in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday as the Court heard a Louisiana case on restricting abortion, June Medical Services v. Russo, described by ScotusBlog, “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”

Schumer turned and pointed at the Supreme Court building behind him and menacingly screamed as he shook his fist:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch! And I want to tell you Kavanaugh! You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you! If you go forward with these awful decisions…”

Seeing as how Senate Minority Leader Schumer can not do anything to Judicial Branch USSC Justices via Congress, this sure sounds like a physical threat to me...

( I see Democrats have learned nothing since their violent rhetoric triggered a dangerous liberal extremist snowflake into gunning down R-Scalise)



Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, "You Will Pay the Price! You Won't Know What Hit You!" (Video)"

.

Fucky Chucky has learned his left wing lovers will suck on his dick regardless of what he says.

Nobody takes that stupid son-of-a-bitch seriously. His parents should do time for letting him live.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened two conservative Supreme Court justices as he spoke at a pro-choice rally in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday as the Court heard a Louisiana case on restricting abortion, June Medical Services v. Russo, described by ScotusBlog, “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”

Schumer turned and pointed at the Supreme Court building behind him and menacingly screamed as he shook his fist:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch! And I want to tell you Kavanaugh! You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you! If you go forward with these awful decisions…”

Seeing as how Senate Minority Leader Schumer can not do anything to Judicial Branch USSC Justices via Congress, this sure sounds like a physical threat to me...

( I see Democrats have learned nothing since their violent rhetoric triggered a dangerous liberal extremist snowflake into gunning down R-Scalise)



Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, "You Will Pay the Price! You Won't Know What Hit You!" (Video)"

.

Where's he gonna get a whirlwind? Does it come in a can?

From Pelosi's ass.

 

[Zorro!]

Cocaine Mitch McConnell in Floor Speech Slams Chuck Schumer for Supreme Court Threats

 

[Slade3200]

what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

Agreed. I’m not claiming they are doing anything with unicorn buttholes. The court interprets laws. And through their interpretations and rulings they set precedent which in this case applies to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion under legal constraints.

 

[iceberg]

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

Agreed. I’m not claiming they are doing anything with unicorn buttholes. The court interprets laws. And through their interpretations and rulings they set precedent which in this case applies to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion under legal constraints.

i'm against abortion, if i have a say in the matter. however, my views are not binding to the world. we all tend to forget that and continue to work to create a world for ourselves, not all of us. our differences become at first talking points and then if it lingers, the divide we see today.

simply put, there is no answer that will make everyone happy. sounds like most things in life to be honest. but to me regardless of my views, this was decided and as you say, legal boundaries set all must follow. now people bring up post birth abortions and far as i know that's murder. they'd need to change that definition to accomplish that. these days the left goes into overdrive to move words around so their actions don't sound as bad as they are.

but that's a different topic completely. for abortion, if people are just waiting to make a comeback and try again with better odds, what does that honestly sound like? a refusal to accept an outcome?

kinda like losing an election and they lose their shit vs accept they have now entered a time in life where HORROR AMONG HORRORS - they don't like our president.

sooner or later you gotta stop abusing that unicorns ass and accept some things. so if i'm directly involved then i will advise against it. but decisions like this are about as personal as it can get and projecting my views, beliefs and conditions on them during this time is done for me. not them, and not the baby they profess to care about.

but given our attack mentality today and people wanting to rewrite our laws, systems and constitution to suit their individuality, it doesn't surprise me one bit. however through all this, no new points have been made. nothing new has been brought to the table. just people wanting something different and legal precedence doesn't matter. the same legal precedence they want others to follow when it suits their individuality.

strange how that works.

in any event - one of the most tear jerking songs i've ever known is about abortion and regret. i'll leave it at that.

hey lucy i remember your name
i left a dozen roses on your grave today

 

[Polishprince]

Last I heard it was against the law to try to influence the decisions of a judge with physical threats or political extortion. It's clear that the threats weren't just some random generic political rhetoric because Schumer named the Supreme Court Justices. Even in the most liberal assessment of Schumer's conduct would indicate that he tried to extort a favorable decision from the highest court by using physical or political threats.

Schumer is an unindicted felon. He was clearly trying to bully Supreme Court Justices by name in order obtain the judicial decision he wanted.

Citing Rising Political Violence, Hawley Moves to Censure Schumer Over Threats to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.

Time for Schumer to resign.

On Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a resolution to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) over his threat against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Fourteen other senators cosponsored his resolution, which warns about the uptick in political violence and condemns Schumer "in the strongest possible terms."

On Wednesday, Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name in an attempt to bully them into a pro-abortion ruling in a case currently before the Supreme Court.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Schumer told a crowd of abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court. "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."​

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts immediately made a rare public statement condemning Contemptible Schumer's remarks.

"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," he wrote. "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."​

"[T]he statements of Senator Schumer could be read to suggest a threat or call for physical violence against 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," the resolution states. "[A]ccording to the Institute for Economics and Peace, political violence in the United States has increased over the last decade."

Hawley's resolution noted that the U.S. Marshals Service investigated "4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary" in 2018 alone and that four federal judges have been targeted and murdered since 1979.

"Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, 'We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics' and that 'the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised.'"​

Therefore, the Senate

"(1) censures and condemns in the strongest possible terms the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his threatening statements against Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; and
(2) calls on all members of the Senate to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary."​

In addition to Hawley, Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) are all original cosponsors of the resolution.

In this time of political violence, where representatives have been shot at on the baseball field, it is important for both Republicans and Democrats to condemn threats like this.

Good points here. Suppose this was a lawyer for an accused mobster, someone like Bruce Cutler, calling out the jurists by name outside the courtroom making the same kind of threats?