Schumer attacks Supreme Court, then lies about it

[Fuzzy Bear]

He should be censured by the Senate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He should be censured by the Senate.

That's not going to happen. Other Democrats (i.e. Sheldon Whitehouse) are defending him for his comments, and even launching attacks of their own upon the Chief Justice.

The Coronavirus has taken this off the front page. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

He should be censured by the Senate.

For what? Criticizing a co-equal branch of government?

He threatened retaliation against two (2) specific Justices.  Why?  What those two?  Did Thomas, Alito, and Roberts suddenly become locks to uphold Roe?

What, exactly did "reaping the whirlwind" mean as it applied explicitly to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?  Schumer's later explanation doesn't wash.  He was speaking of two (2) specific Justices appointed by a specific President; why only those two?

The principle of Separation of Powers requires that Schumer explain why he aimed his comments at two (2) specific Justices, and what whirlwind he would bring to bear against those two Justices, personally.  Or, he just needs to apologize and admit that his hatred of Donald Trump got the better of him, and he said something he shouldn't have in a public setting.  But this statement isn't "criticism".  It's not a crime, and it's pretty hamhanded if he thought he was actually going to change anything regarding Justices with life tenure.  But it WAS an assault on Separation of Powers.  Censure is an appropriate sanction.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He should be censured by the Senate.

For what? Criticizing a co-equal branch of government?

He threatened retaliation against two (2) specific Justices.  Why?  What those two?  Did Thomas, Alito, and Roberts suddenly become locks to uphold Roe?

What, exactly did "reaping the whirlwind" mean as it applied explicitly to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?  Schumer's later explanation doesn't wash.  He was speaking of two (2) specific Justices appointed by a specific President; why only those two?

The principle of Separation of Powers requires that Schumer explain why he aimed his comments at two (2) specific Justices, and what whirlwind he would bring to bear against those two Justices, personally.  Or, he just needs to apologize and admit that his hatred of Donald Trump got the better of him, and he said something he shouldn't have in a public setting.  But this statement isn't "criticism".  It's not a crime, and it's pretty hamhanded if he thought he was actually going to change anything regarding Justices with life tenure.  But it WAS an assault on Separation of Powers.  Censure is an appropriate sanction.

Presumably Schumer aimed his remarks at those specific justices because he disagrees with their decisions and overall judicial philosophy as Supreme Court justices.

Is it an assault on separation of powers whenever Trump tweets attacks at specific members of Congress? Did you type up a bunch of posts demanding that Trump explain where exactly he wanted AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Presley to “go back to” as it applied explicitly to those congresswomen? Oh, you didn’t. Weird.

The independence of the judicial branch should be respected. That doesn’t mean the Justices should have some sacrosanct immunity from criticism by their peers in the other branches of government. Give me a break.

This wasn't "criticism".  This was a threat, suggesting consequences that would occur for two (2) of the Justices who may vote a certain way.

A totally hollow threat?  Unless I'm missing something, yes.  But it's not "criticism".  Criticism is Obama's comments on Citizens United at the SOTU.  Criticism is Trump's suggesting Sotomayor and Ginsburg have an unreasoning bias against him and suggesting they recuse themselves.  Schumer went somewhere else.