Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
Are you kidding? He’s a Democrat. The Twitter Ban Hammer only falls on conservatives and Republicans.
Not a lawyer, but I don’t think the third element was met. However this seems as though it might apply:
18 USC §115
Plus any applicable professional sanctions. We shall see how Chief Justice Roberts decides to protect his court.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
People always say “I’m from Brooklyn” like the rest of us are supposed to be impressed.
Get over it. We have.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if he has a high staff turnover . . .