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
Tags:

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. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    EHerring (View Comment):

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

    Are you kidding? He’s a Democrat. The Twitter Ban Hammer only falls on conservatives and Republicans.

    • #31
  2. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Threatening government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat.

    When a threat is made against a judge, it can be considered obstruction of justice….

    There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another….

    Not a lawyer, but I don’t think the third element was met. However this seems as though it might apply:

    18 USC §115 

    (a)(1)  Whoever–

    (A)  assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title;  or

    (B) 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)….

    Plus any applicable professional sanctions. We shall see how Chief Justice Roberts decides to protect his court.

    • #32
  3. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    Schumer like Harry Reid before him, will get a pass from Corporate Media (Remember when he repeatedly lied about Romney’s taxes and at the end of the election, admitted he lied).  It will be old news by the weekend. Expecting fairness is coverage is a pipe dream

     

    • #33
  4. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    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. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    For many years various members of the Supreme Court have suggested legislative solutions to unpopular decisions. It seems to me that overreaching federal judges are partly responsible for so many appeals to the highest court.

    • #34
  5. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    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. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    For many years various members of the Supreme Court have suggested legislative solutions to unpopular decisions. It seems to me that overreaching federal judges are partly responsible for so many appeals to the highest court.

    Agree. They want to be politicians without the consequences. 

    • #35
  6. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    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.

    I don’t really think Schumer is that thoughtful. I believe he just let his mask slip in the heat of the moment and revealed just how depraved his mind is. In watching him over the years, I have become convinced that he has no moral base and no ethic other than win at any cost.

    • #36
  7. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):
    I don’t really think Schumer is that thoughtful. I believe he just let his mask slip in the heat of the moment and revealed just how depraved his mind is. In watching him over the years, I have become convinced that he has no moral base and no ethic other than win at any cost.

    After watching him on video yesterday, one can only conclude  he has serious anger management issues.

    • #37
  8. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    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. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    For many years various members of the Supreme Court have suggested legislative solutions to unpopular decisions. It seems to me that overreaching federal judges are partly responsible for so many appeals to the highest court.

    Agree. They want to be politicians without the consequences.

    And politicians don’t want the consequences of being politicians, so the politicians direct many of the controversial concerns to the court. We might have the best opportunity to correct the mess if the judges would refuse to legislate from the bench and force the legislators to do their own legislating. But then the politicians might (heaven forbid!) have to take real stands, publicly vote on real issues, and live with the consequences.

    • #38
  9. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy
    @LimestoneCowboy

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    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. Personally I don’t worship SCOTUS decisions.

    For many years various members of the Supreme Court have suggested legislative solutions to unpopular decisions. It seems to me that overreaching federal judges are partly responsible for so many appeals to the highest court.

    @Goldwaterwoman, as @django suggests above, perhaps SCOTUS 5-4 OR 6-3 decisions should be subject to legislative super-majority review. After all, if we have three equal branches, why should SCOTUS alone have the power to review the decisions of the other branches? Why shouldn’t the legislature have a limited power to rule on the Constitutionality of SCOTUS decisions.. emanations and penumbras and all of that other extra-Constitutional err.. stuff.

    One final thought. Schumer’s grave mistake was to pressure specific SCOTUS justices before they handed down their decisions and their underlying legal reasoning. That is banana republic err.. stuff. Schumer’s job is to identify the  flawed reasoning  and to propose legislative remedies which address SCOTUS errors.

     

     

     

    • #39
  10. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    People always say “I’m from Brooklyn” like the rest of us are supposed to be impressed.

    Get over it. We have.

    • #40
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    To her great credit Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor and strong liberal Ruth Marcus came down on Schumer like a ton of bricks at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/05/john-roberts-was-right-castigate-chuck-schumer/  Marcus writes:

    “Bashing judges — not simply disagreeing with their rulings but demeaning and attacking the individuals themselves — is dangerous, disrespectful and corrosive to the independence of the judiciary. This holds no matter who does it — a Republican president or a Democratic senator.”

    After her obligatory criticism of Trump, Marcus further writes:

    “Whoa. If Trump had said something like this about liberal justices, Schumer and his allies would be going crazy, and rightly so. Schumer had every right to oppose the confirmations of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; having lost those battles, he has every right to disagree with their rulings.

    “But these comments had an air of menace, whether intended or not, and an unsettling echo of Kavanaugh’s intemperate outburst at his own hearing, when he warned that Senate Democrats ‘sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear the country will reap the whirlwind.'”

    I am glad to see folks on the left condemning Schumer’s statements.  

    I hope that a member of the New York bar files a bar complaint against Schumer for threatening judge.

    • #41
  12. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    Schumer like Harry Reid before him, will get a pass from Corporate Media (Remember when he repeatedly lied about Romney’s taxes and at the end of the election, admitted he lied). It will be old news by the weekend. Expecting fairness is coverage is a pipe dream

    Reid was protected as he spoke from the floor of the Senate, under the “Speech and Debate” clause.  But Schumer was not speaking on the floor of the Senate.  Schumer is not legally protected.

     

    • #42
  13. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Let me add coward and weasel to the list of Schumer qualifiers.  He can’t even own what he said.  He claims he was talking about Republican lawmakers but there is no way you can listen to what he said and come to that conclusion. He is a total degenerate and it’s too bad he is from NY because anywhere else (ok, not California), there would be a chance he would be voted out.

    • #43
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):
    I don’t really think Schumer is that thoughtful. I believe he just let his mask slip in the heat of the moment and revealed just how depraved his mind is. In watching him over the years, I have become convinced that he has no moral base and no ethic other than win at any cost.

    After watching him on video yesterday, one can only conclude he has serious anger management issues.

    I wonder if he has a high staff turnover . . .

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.