Schumer Threatens Gorsuch And Kavanaugh

[Mountain Man]

Even CNN commentators are saying that Chuck crossed the line.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ysical-threat/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...like-a-threat/

[RumTumTugger]

Riiiiight. More than likely they will circle the wagons around him and protect him just like the Democrats did with Omar and the other virulent anti-Semites when they got in trouble.

The Democrat Senators will but the Republicans are the majority in the Senate.

[DesertBerean]

Even CNN commentators are saying that Chuck crossed the line.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ysical-threat/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...like-a-threat/

[rogue06]

00000000000000ab000-00aaag.jpg

[Watermelon]

I don’t get why people just don’t say they’re sorry for what they said and move on. Schumer crossed the line, whether intentional or not, it was public statement attempting to politically influence the court and no one should defend or excuse it.

[Terraceth]

I don’t get why people just don’t say they’re sorry for what they said and move on. Schumer crossed the line, whether intentional or not, it was public statement attempting to politically influence the court and no one should defend or excuse it.

Well, Schumer did apologize, sort of:

In a floor speech on Thursday, Schumer backtracked on his remarks, admitting that, “yes, I am angry. The women of America are angry.”

“Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn’t come out the way I intended to,” Schumer said. “My point was that there would be political consequences -political consequences – for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court with the newly-confirmed justices stripped away a woman’s right to choose.”

“Of course I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise,” the minority leader added.

“I am from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language,” the New York Democrat continued. “I shouldn’t have used the words I did but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...chief-justice/

[Watermelon]

Well, Schumer did apologize, sort of:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...chief-justice/

The problem with his statement and his sort of apology is the attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. The judiciary is the only government branch where it’s independence is vital to the entire system of government and members of Congress need to have greater awareness in keeping it that way.

[Terraceth]

The problem with his statement and his sort of apology is the attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. The judiciary is the only government branch where it’s independence is vital to the entire system of government and members of Congress need to have greater awareness in keeping it that way.

Schumer politicized it? No less so than McConnell did when he refused to take any action on Merrick Garland and wait for the election, hoping he'd have a Republican in the White House. That's far more politicization than what Schumer did. Now I've maintained that McConnell's action, while a violation of norms, was a violation of no law or rule, but one can hardly say that any "politicization" Schumer performed here was worse than McConnell's action.

[Starlight]

The problem with his statement and his sort of apology is the attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. The judiciary is the only government branch where it’s independence is vital to the entire system of government and members of Congress need to have greater awareness in keeping it that way.

The US Supreme court has been politicized pretty much for the entire history of the US: Justices are appointed by politicians, and make decisions about politics... how can that not be political? It's inherent in the way the system is set up. Post Marbury v. Madison the court had the power to overturn laws passed by congress. That makes it poltical.

I agree with you that ideally the court system wouldn't be political, but that's just not how the US setup works. If you want a (mostly) non-political judicial system you'd be looking for one like my country has where the courts can't overturn a law passed by the democratically elected government.

[rogue06]

Schumer politicized it? No less so than McConnell did when he refused to take any action on Merrick Garland and wait for the election, hoping he'd have a Republican in the White House. That's far more politicization than what Schumer did. Now I've maintained that McConnell's action, while a violation of norms, was a violation of no law or rule, but one can hardly say that any "politicization" Schumer performed here was worse than McConnell's action.

How does one politicize what is part of a political process -- the nominating and confirmation process?

In contrast, Schumer and his mob marched to the steps of the Supreme Court and issued a threat against two justices if they didn't bow to their will.

[Watermelon]

Schumer politicized it? No less so than McConnell did when he refused to take any action on Merrick Garland and wait for the election, hoping he'd have a Republican in the White House. That's far more politicization than what Schumer did. Now I've maintained that McConnell's action, while a violation of norms, was a violation of no law or rule, but one can hardly say that any "politicization" Schumer performed here was worse than McConnell's action.

I’m not too familiar with what McConnell did. I’ll look it up a bit later. My issue here with Schumer is with him telling judges what decision they should make. And his apology clarifying that the threat actually meant political consequences indicates that he’s still missing the point. If people become convinced that the courts are politically aligned then it becomes harder for them to accept decisions they don’t like. That’s when you can start doomsday prepping.

[Watermelon]

The US Supreme court has been politicized pretty much for the entire history of the US: Justices are appointed by politicians, and make decisions about politics... how can that not be political? It's inherent in the way the system is set up. Post Marbury v. Madison the court had the power to overturn laws passed by congress. That makes it poltical.

I agree with you that ideally the court system wouldn't be political, but that's just not how the US setup works. If you want a (mostly) non-political judicial system you'd be looking for one like my country has where the courts can't overturn a law passed by the democratically elected government.

I’m pretty sure Marbury only allows legislation to be overturned if it’s inconsistent with the constitution. The high court in Australia also does this.

[mikewhitney]

The US Supreme court has been politicized pretty much for the entire history of the US: Justices are appointed by politicians, and make decisions about politics... how can that not be political? It's inherent in the way the system is set up. Post Marbury v. Madison the court had the power to overturn laws passed by congress. That makes it poltical.

I agree with you that ideally the court system wouldn't be political, but that's just not how the US setup works. If you want a (mostly) non-political judicial system you'd be looking for one like my country has where the courts can't overturn a law passed by the democratically elected government.

That is just an oppressive government you are desiring. Our United States government is to be restricted to the powers authorized to it by Constituion. This keeps the government from going rogue. (Sorry Rogue about this use of your name)

[Starlight]

If you want a (mostly) non-political judicial system you'd be looking for one like my country has where the courts can't overturn a law passed by the democratically elected government.

That is just an oppressive government you are desiring. Our United States government is to be restricted to the powers authorized to it by Constituion. This keeps the government from going rogue. (Sorry Rogue about this use of your name)

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, ranks my country the freest in the world. So no, you're utterly wrong.

Turns out having democratically elected representatives in charge makes for a freer society than having unaccountable non-democratic courts in charge.

[Starlight]

I’m pretty sure Marbury only allows legislation to be overturned if it’s inconsistent with the constitution. The high court in Australia also does this.

The two systems are similar, though the US Supreme court tends to do a lot of creative reading and interpretation compared to Australian courts. Somehow US judges manage to find their own personal political views hidden in the US constitution.