Schumer attacks Supreme Court, then lies about it

[dead0man]

link-CNN

Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising nomination fights.

"I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," Schumer said, turning to look at the Supreme Court building.

<snip>

Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman said criticism of the New York Democrat's comments are a "deliberate misinterpretation."

"Women's health care rights are at stake and Americans from every corner of the country are in anguish about what the court might do to them," Goodman said in a statement.  He went on to falsely say, "Sen. Schumer's comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Schumer has always made comments like these as far back as 2006 I can recall on various issues him saying "You better not do x, or else you will pay the price". Which always struck me has heavy handed considering he was DSCC chair at the time. It came off to the younger me as trying to extort political results, mafia style.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Schumer has always made comments like these as far back as 2006 I can recall on various issues him saying "You better not do x, or else you will pay the price". Which always struck me has heavy handed considering he was DSCC chair at the time. It came off to the younger me as trying to extort political results, mafia style.

New York values.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He should be censured by the Senate.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[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. 

[Calthrina950]

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. 

Coronavirus has taken virtually everything off the front page at this point.

[SteveRogers]

He should be censured by the Senate.

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

[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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I'm late to this party but I think this is one of the few good things Chuck has done during his time as minority leader

[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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why you don't see much decline in the unity and support for Trump among Republicans. The Democrats aren't declaring a truce on any of the major social issues, and the constant push for stacking the Supreme Court or what have you incentivizes Republicans to stand by Trump even if they don't like him. He may be an a@^hole but he is their a@%hole.

Democrats, because they don't share the positions and often don't respect the positions, expect that Republicans can easily just toss all that to the wayside in name of getting rid of Trump. Part of this disconnect is that there is this mindset among Democrats that a lot of Republicans are only pro-life for political reasons and that their position and whole viewpoint is not a serious political mindset. Maybe that was true 20 years ago, but a lot of that has shaken out now. This mindset also leads to the presumption that there should be some willingness to set this aside for the sake of the country and ousting Trump. This underscores the false premise that rested on Hillary's campaign of relying on Republican defectors to defeat Trump, especially with a Supreme Court seat hanging in the balance.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is why you don't see much decline in the unity and support for Trump among Republicans. The Democrats aren't declaring a truce on any of the major social issues, and the constant push for stacking the Supreme Court or what have you incentivizes Republicans to stand by Trump even if they don't like him. He may be an a@^hole but he is their a@%hole.

It's extremely rich to pretend that Republicans haven't been doing their best to stack not only Supreme Court, but all levels of the judiciary.  Also the idea that only one side needs to declare a truce is ludicrous. When only one side stops fighting, that's a surrender, not a truce.

Where Hillary goofed was not in thinking Republican voters weren't serious about social issues, but that Republican voters generally cared more about their country than their party.  I don't know why she thought that. If it had been true, she'd have lost to some other Republican nominee instead of Trump.  The most pitiable thing about Republicans in 2016 was they thought they needed someone like Trump to beat Hillary. Pretty much any other potential nominee the Republicans could have put forth would not only have likely won the Electoral College, but had a chance of winning the popular vote as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why you don't see much decline in the unity and support for Trump among Republicans. The Democrats aren't declaring a truce on any of the major social issues, and the constant push for stacking the Supreme Court or what have you incentivizes Republicans to stand by Trump even if they don't like him. He may be an a@^hole but he is their a@%hole.

It's extremely rich to pretend that Republicans haven't been doing their best to stack not only Supreme Court, but all levels of the judiciary.  Also the idea that only one side needs to declare a truce is ludicrous. When only one side stops fighting, that's a surrender, not a truce.

Why do you people on this forum, always confuse "independent analysis" for personal opinion? I understand how Republicans and conservatives think, I am trying to explain in an analytical way how that effects their willingness to support Trump in spite of everything that has happened and in a way emphasize how comments like Schumer's have the effect of hardening the polarization.

The situation is what it is, I am not trying to give my personal views on the matter, or pass judgments on that viewpoint, that would distract from my overall point and ironically lead to it being missed, though you guys end up doing that regardless it seems. 

I said "they" and "their", not "I" and "Our" for a reason. I have been very critical of Trump, I said I wouldn't have picked Kavanaugh and I said that Garland should have been given an up or down vote.

However, Conservatives regard the success at court appointments as a success that they own and that was made possible by Trump. If Trump loses, that success will be undone, therefore they will stick by Trump at the levels we are seeing, to preserve those victories.

I said the other night, that the cultural divide between the two blocks as well as their own media and "facts" dedicated to their line of thinking has the effect of putting us in a situation like that of the late 19th century where we were extremely polarized between the two coalitions with the Civil War voting pattern at full strength.

[RINO Tom]

Thank you for posting this, if for nothing else to balance out the type of story angle we get on this site, haha.  I'm too lazy to find my own articles, you see.