Schumer’s SCOTUS threat was truly unprecedented, then he made it worse

The supreme court has allowed itself to be infected by the worst kind of partisanship. This is what they have earned.
1. The Supreme Court is not infected by partisanship. It is the Supreme Court and is made up of conservative and liberal justices, it is what it is, like it or not.
2. Any threats to any Federal judges is against the Law
. Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia
Political threats are not threats as they are defined by the law. If the conservative judges overturn what is considered settled law they will face POLITICAL consequences, that's a fact.


No they will not. That is why we have an independent Judiciary. Learn the damn Constitution.
 
He should be booted from Senate. He is not an honest nor fair man.
You want honest and fair????? First kick out the 53 scum in the senate that call themselves republicans Then we can talk about the Dems
Hey eddiew ask ol' Comrade Bernie how honest and fair Democrats are....He is about to get hosed again.
Last I saw Biden was leading But imo Sanders is a sure loser to Trump Why not a guy who has a good chance?
 
He should be booted from Senate. He is not an honest nor fair man.
You want honest and fair????? First kick out the 53 scum in the senate that call themselves republicans Then we can talk about the Dems
Hey eddiew ask ol' Comrade Bernie how honest and fair Democrats are....He is about to get hosed again.
Last I saw Biden was leading But imo Sanders is a sure loser to Trump Why not a guy who has a good chance?


Retard Joe? :lol:
 
He should be booted from Senate. He is not an honest nor fair man.
You want honest and fair????? First kick out the 53 scum in the senate that call themselves republicans Then we can talk about the Dems
Hey eddiew ask ol' Comrade Bernie how honest and fair Democrats are....He is about to get hosed again.
Last I saw Biden was leading But imo Sanders is a sure loser to Trump Why not a guy who has a good chance?
Biden doesn't know where he sh** last.Let alone what office he's running for
 
The worst of it is not even spoken. He screamed these threats because a phony "right" is mildly in danger of being altered - the "right" of a pregnant woman to kill her fetus, legally.

It is astounding that the entire Democrat Party has staked its political fate on support for this grotesque, made-up, court-imposed "right."
WHO TF do republican slime think they are telling a women what to do with her body?? When you dumb fukers get pregnant you can do as you wish
Abortion is done on another body, not the woman’s
Nostra When you get pregnant you can spout into this world all the children you'd like 7 ,8 ,9, 10 I wish it on you
Idiot post having nothing to do with the discussion.
 
Political threats are not threats as they are defined by the law. If the conservative judges overturn what is considered settled law they will face POLITICAL consequences, that's a fact.

So we should still have segregation in schools? That was settled law until it wasn't.
 
This sounds like an “abuse of power” to me. Sounds like a more severe version of what they tried to pin on Trump. Why is there no accountability?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because Schumer is a Democrat.
 
The supreme court has allowed itself to be infected by the worst kind of partisanship. This is what they have earned.
1. The Supreme Court is not infected by partisanship. It is the Supreme Court and is made up of conservative and liberal justices, it is what it is, like it or not.
2. Any threats to any Federal judges is against the Law
. Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia
Political threats are not threats as they are defined by the law. If the conservative judges overturn what is considered settled law they will face POLITICAL consequences, that's a fact.
What political consequences will they face? Will they not be re-elected?
 
My question to Lefties is this: With regard to a woman's choice of whether to have a child or not, do you suppose that the only way of preventing a child is to wait for it to be conceived and develop in the womb, then kill it?

What about refraining from reproductive acts with people with whom you would not want to have a child? What about using birth control pills, which are 99% effective when used as directed? What about use of a condom, which is 95% effective when used correctly? What about an IUD? What about having your tubes tied?

And with all of these perfectly reasonably and efficacious ways of preventing the conception of a child, YOU CLAIM that removing the infanticide option is taking away a woman's right to choose?

Stupid?

Devious?

Oblivious?

What is it?

Manifestly, if a woman CHOOSES not to have children there are many ways to effectuate that choice without killing a living human being.
 
My question to Lefties is this: With regard to a woman's choice of whether to have a child or not, do you suppose that the only way of preventing a child is to wait for it to be conceived and develop in the womb, then kill it?

What about refraining from reproductive acts with people with whom you would not want to have a child? What about using birth control pills, which are 99% effective when used as directed? What about use of a condom, which is 95% effective when used correctly? What about an IUD? What about having your tubes tied?

And with all of these perfectly reasonably and efficacious ways of preventing the conception of a child, YOU CLAIM that removing the infanticide option is taking away a woman's right to choose?

Stupid?

Devious?

Oblivious?

What is it?

Manifestly, if a woman CHOOSES not to have children there are many ways to effectuate that choice without killing a living human being.
The pro-abort death cult supports a woman's right to choose -- only as long as she chooses to kill her child.
 

Forum List

Back
Top