Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Is Chuck Schumer Evil? Or Demented? Or Both?

 

Wednesday, the Senate Minority Leader issued threats against the two newest Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neal Gorsuch. Is this considered acceptable behavior by the top-ranking Democrat in the US Senate? The venue was an “abortion-rights rally” and Schumer angrily threatened the two Justices if they issued rulings on the leftist sacrament of abortion that he disagrees with. Now, what could he mean by stating that the two justices will “pay the price” if they ruled against the doctrine of abortion with no limits that his party supports?

These threats were responded to by Chief Justice John Roberts. I’m guessing that Schumer’s audience applauded wildly at those threats.

I guess there are no lengths to which Leftists will not go to support abortion on demand, any time. This is very sad, and thoroughly disgusting. And lowers the standards (already rock-bottom) of behavior by politicians.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. E. Kent Golding Member

    Evil. Schumer does this stuff because he has a safe seat, and because it works. Still Evil.

    • #1
    • March 4, 2020, at 5:17 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  2. RightAngles Member

    Schumer is a truly despicable individual. 

    • #2
    • March 4, 2020, at 5:19 PM PST
    • 16 likes
  3. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member

    Don’t stand between the left and their child sacrifices.

    • #3
    • March 4, 2020, at 5:35 PM PST
    • 18 likes
  4. The Reticulator Member

    I read that Fox article that you linked to. It should have mentioned President Obama’s 2010 SOTU in which he made an unprecedented attack on a Supreme Court ruling. 

    • #4
    • March 4, 2020, at 5:51 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  5. Doug Watt Moderator

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Don’t stand between the left and their child sacrifices.

    A further cautionary note: Never get between Schumer and a television camera.

     

    • #5
    • March 4, 2020, at 5:52 PM PST
    • 13 likes
  6. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RushBabe49: Now, what could he mean by stating that the two justices will “pay the price” if they ruled against the doctrine of abortion with no limits that his party supports?

    Since the justices are appointed for life, the most logical meaning to this threat would be death. Perhaps it would make sense to have the Secret Service talk to him.

    • #6
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:07 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  7. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Be nice if someone could ask Gabby Giffords husband, who’s running for Senate in Arizona, what he thinks about Schumer’s threatening rhetoric….

    • #7
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:09 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  8. Django Member

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    • #8
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:15 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  9. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS on this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    • #9
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:47 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  10. Gossamer Cat Coolidge

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Don’t stand between the left and their child sacrifices.

    A further cautionary note: Never get between Schumer and a television camera.

     

    Or Junior’s cheesecake 

    • #10
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:50 PM PST
    • 1 like
  11. The Reticulator Member

     

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS on this decision.

    Maybe. But Schumer isn’t a legislature.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    You mean with some sort of super-majority? Wouldn’t hurt to talk about it and discuss the pros and cons.

    • #11
    • March 4, 2020, at 6:58 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  12. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS one this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    There are lots of laws that don’t have to be worshiped. But when you get into “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” mindset or worse, in threatening judges based on how you think they’re going to rule, you’re heading to a very bad spot, where politicians decide to only obey the laws they agree with and make implied threats of violence if they get a ruling that they don’t agree with.

    That’s the Sanctuary City mindset on steroids, where the left thinks the milder version is great … until they get outraged over the idea of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in Virginia. Then the rule of law must be upheld. Schumer can say he didn’t mean to actually threaten Gorsuch or Kavanaugh in any physical way, but I’m sure no Democrat thinks his or her rhetoric set off James Hodgkinson, when he decided to take an 800-mile trip to Washington to turn all of the left’s hateful talk about Republicans into action.

    • #12
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:00 PM PST
    • 15 likes
  13. Django Member

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS on this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    Depends on the definition of “maximum pressure”. Apparently, Roberts took Schumer’s words to be a threat of physical action: “You won’t know what hit you.” 

    • #13
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:03 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  14. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS one this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    There are lots of laws that don’t have to be worshiped. But when you get into “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” mindset or worse, in threatening judges based on how you think they’re going to rule, you’re heading to a very bad spot, where politicians decide to only obey the laws they agree with and make implied threats of violence if they get a ruling that they don’t agree with.

    That’s the Sanctuary City mindset on steroids, where the left thinks the milder version is great … until they get outraged over the idea of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in Virginia. Then the rule of law must be upheld. Schumer can say he didn’t mean to actually threaten Gorsuch or Kavanaugh in any physical way, but I’m sure no Democrat thinks his or her rhetoric set off James Hodgkinson, when he decided to take an 800-mile trip to Washington to turn all of the left’s hateful talk about Republicans into action.

    My apology for not clarifying that I meant that the pressure should be ex post facto. After a manifestly bad SCOTUS decision there needs to be legislative recourse as a final court of appeal.

    • #14
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:10 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  15. Django Member

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS one this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    There are lots of laws that don’t have to be worshiped. But when you get into “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” mindset or worse, in threatening judges based on how you think they’re going to rule, you’re heading to a very bad spot, where politicians decide to only obey the laws they agree with and make implied threats of violence if they get a ruling that they don’t agree with.

    That’s the Sanctuary City mindset on steroids, where the left thinks the milder version is great … until they get outraged over the idea of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in Virginia. Then the rule of law must be upheld. Schumer can say he didn’t mean to actually threaten Gorsuch or Kavanaugh in any physical way, but I’m sure no Democrat thinks his or her rhetoric set off James Hodgkinson, when he decided to take an 800-mile trip to Washington to turn all of the left’s hateful talk about Republicans into action.

    My apology for not clarifying that I meant that the pressure should be ex post facto. After a manifestly bad SCOTUS decision there needs to be legislative recourse as a final court of appeal.

    Well, there’s the super-majority of both the House and the Senate. Possibly we restrict it to cases such as 5/4, or maybe 6/3. 

    The other option is to have President just say, “We will not comply, and will let the voters speak at the ballot box.” 

    • #15
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:15 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. Full Size Tabby Member

    What Sen. Schumer said about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is despicable.

    Nonetheless, I think Sen. Schumer’s statement was driven more by his insatiable appetite to see his name in a headline than by any specific evil intent.

    Consider the plight of someone as publicity-hungry as Sen. Schumer in his current unfortunate circumstances. He is nominally the “leader” of the minority party in the Senate, but is overshadowed by the many of his party-mates who are or have recently been candidates for U.S. President and are thereby getting daily press headlines. Sen. Schumer’s name has barely graced a headline in months, while Biden, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and ever Harris and Booker get frequent headline treatment. Schumer has to do or say something spectacular to get his name in the headlines and thereby remind people that he exists and he is important. 

    • #16
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:32 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. The Reticulator Member

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    Nonetheless, I think Sen. Schumer’s statement was driven more by his insatiable appetite to see his name in a headline than by any specific evil intent.

    If he really wanted headlines, he could have announced his support for Donald Trump this fall.

    On second thought, maybe the news media wouldn’t report that. 

    • #17
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:44 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  18. Nohaaj Coolidge

    Schumer is both pandering to his base, and firing them up for the November elections. The Left pays homage to their (incorrect, yet presumably) unassailable conviction that abortion is a right. The left understands the current peril of having Trump as President, and the catastrophic potential of having him as POTUS for another four years, especially as it relates to the Supreme Court and to ROE v Wade. Actuarially speaking, both Breyer and Ginsberg are statistically “in play”, in the next four years. Schumer knows this, and he is trying to highlight this to all Democrats in his panic over the expectation that Trump will be reelected. What you are observing is the wailing and gnashing of teeth as they panic about their likely outcome in this Fall’s elections. 

    • #18
    • March 4, 2020, at 7:57 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  19. The Cynthonian Member

    I saw a headline this evening that Sen. Hawley of MO plans to introduce a censure resolution against Schumer. That’s a good start. I think a little visit from the Secret Service, or whatever entity guards the justices, would be in order as well. 

    • #19
    • March 4, 2020, at 8:47 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  20. JamesSalerno Coolidge

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    The real story – Trump threatens Schumer!

    • #20
    • March 4, 2020, at 9:42 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  21. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    What Sen. Schumer said about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is despicable.

    Nonetheless, I think Sen. Schumer’s statement was driven more by his insatiable appetite to see his name in a headline than by any specific evil intent.

    Consider the plight of someone as publicity-hungry as Sen. Schumer in his current unfortunate circumstances. He is nominally the “leader” of the minority party in the Senate, but is overshadowed by the many of his party-mates who are or have recently been candidates for U.S. President and are thereby getting daily press headlines. Sen. Schumer’s name has barely graced a headline in months, while Biden, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and ever Harris and Booker get frequent headline treatment. Schumer has to do or say something spectacular to get his name in the headlines and thereby remind people that he exists and he is important.

    I hope so. It occurs to me that if you start from the position – and it’s a common enough position – that all is lost if too many SCOTI are nominated by the Wrong Side, and that we are in some way doomed if that happens, regrettable murder starts to look pretty good. 

    • #21
    • March 4, 2020, at 11:01 PM PST
    • Like
  22. Stad Thatcher

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):
    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled.

    Isn’t there some mechanism by which Congress can make a law that prohibits judicial review by SCOTUS? I have a vague recollection of such . . .

    • #22
    • March 5, 2020, at 5:00 AM PST
    • 1 like
  23. Hartmann von Aue Member

    Django (View Comment):

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    I’m betting nothing happens to Schumer.

    Let me play devil’s advocate here.

    Recall that in the 2015 Obergeffel v Hodges decision.. one man… just ONE! man, Justice Kennedy.. in a 5 to 4 decision overturned centuries of societal understanding and and multiple popular votes on the validity of gay marriage.

    In my view it would have been perfectly appropriate for the legislative branch to exert maximum pressure on SCOTUS one this decision.

    Perhaps we should be considering options on how to overturn bad SCOTUS decision by legislative means, in much the same manner as impeachment are handled. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    There are lots of laws that don’t have to be worshiped. But when you get into “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” mindset or worse, in threatening judges based on how you think they’re going to rule, you’re heading to a very bad spot, where politicians decide to only obey the laws they agree with and make implied threats of violence if they get a ruling that they don’t agree with.

    That’s the Sanctuary City mindset on steroids, where the left thinks the milder version is great … until they get outraged over the idea of Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties in Virginia. Then the rule of law must be upheld. Schumer can say he didn’t mean to actually threaten Gorsuch or Kavanaugh in any physical way, but I’m sure no Democrat thinks his or her rhetoric set off James Hodgkinson, when he decided to take an 800-mile trip to Washington to turn all of the left’s hateful talk about Republicans into action.

    My apology for not clarifying that I meant that the pressure should be ex post facto. After a manifestly bad SCOTUS decision there needs to be legislative recourse as a final court of appeal.

    Well, there’s the super-majority of both the House and the Senate. Possibly we restrict it to cases such as 5/4, or maybe 6/3.

    The other option is to have President just say, “We will not comply, and will let the voters speak at the ballot box.”

    This is a very good discussion here, folks. Thanks!

     

    • #23
    • March 5, 2020, at 8:02 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. EHerring Coolidge

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I read that Fox article that you linked to. It should have mentioned President Obama’s 2010 SOTU in which he made an unprecedented attack on a Supreme Court ruling.

    Disagreeing with a ruling and calling for punishment are two different things.

    • #24
    • March 5, 2020, at 8:47 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  25. EHerring Coolidge

    Chuck would be in Twitter jail if he had tweeted what he said.

    • #25
    • March 5, 2020, at 8:48 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  26. The Reticulator Member

    EHerring (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I read that Fox article that you linked to. It should have mentioned President Obama’s 2010 SOTU in which he made an unprecedented attack on a Supreme Court ruling.

    Disagreeing with a ruling and calling for punishment are two different things.

    Sure, but Obama was widely criticized at the time for the unprecedented step of doing it right in the face of a Supreme Court Justice sitting in front of him. Chief Justice Roberts could have called him on it, as he later did when Trump took it to a new level and spoke of Obama judges. Of course, Schumer crossed a new line with what he did.

    • #26
    • March 5, 2020, at 8:56 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  27. Django Member

    UpChuck’s response begins at 30:50 —

    • #27
    • March 5, 2020, at 9:06 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  28. CACrabtree Coolidge

    Don’t know what all the furor is about. After all, in his “apology”, Chuckie explained, “I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language…”

    Perfectly logical explanation. “Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Nothing to see here”.

    • #28
    • March 5, 2020, at 9:40 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  29. The Reticulator Member

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Don’t know what all the furor is about. After all, in his “apology”, Chuckie explained, “I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language…”

    Perfectly logical explanation. “Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Nothing to see here”.

    I wonder if people speak in strong language wherever Donald Trump comes from.

    • #29
    • March 5, 2020, at 9:53 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  30. Kozak Member
    Kozak Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    He’s actually being honest. For once.

    • #30
    • March 5, 2020, at 11:17 AM PST
    • 4 likes