Comments

Schumer the oracle threatens again [UPDATE: And Justice Roberts responds] — 67 Comments

1. I doubt anything will happen . . .

   To be sure.

   Though were “anything” to be defined, perhaps it might be:

   ***flash freezing, followed by splitting on the long axis fore and aft, upon which the right slab delivered to J. Gorsuch and the left slab to J. Kavanaugh for taxidermy, mounting and display***?

2. Nothing about this on Drudge. Once again, he’s either asleep at the switch or he’s decided that he is going to pass over stuff that makes Democrats look like raving maniacs. What the hell happened to Matt Drudge? Five years ago this would have been front page, 24 font, all in red with the police lights. Now? It’s not even mentioned.

3. What the hell happened to Matt Drudge?

   Blackmail? I wouldn’t put it past certain parties in the Democratic Party and given how Drudge orders his life, I would wager he has some secrets.

4. Roberts should step out of milquetoast mode and make a firm reply to Cheesy Chuck.

5. Drudge has been bought…new owners/paymasters for his site.
   Roberts won’t say a word. The Ds own him already.

   But if POTUS were to send a Secret Service team to Chuck’s office & ask him to define what “…you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you…” means that might be a nice way for Chuck to spend the Ides of March pondering his future.

6. “Roberts should step out of milquetoast mode and make a firm reply to Cheesy Chuck.”

   Roberts is precisely the reason that Chuck knows that A) he can get away with this and B) it might be very effective. If the tactic worked before, keep doing it.

7. Ah but Trump can’t say anything about judges without it bein front page news.
   Maybe Trump will tweet about Chuckles statement on the judges.

   UPDATE: Drudge has it on his site now.

8. First Blumenthal, et. al., now Schumer – what’s with Senators threatening the S.C.?

9. Let us just face it: Democrats are evil.

10. Ah ha. Here is the WSJ editorial on the SCOTUS case that’s got Schumer upset.

    Not About Roe v. Wade
    The big issue in a Louisiana abortion case is legal standing.

    Part of it is about restrictions on abortion providers, nominally for the purpose weeding out slip shod physicians. So the providers are suing by claiming that if some women might be denied services, those women would have standing to sue. Therefore the providers should also have standing to sue on behalf of hypothetical women who might have otherwise sued (but don’t exist). Got that? It’s called third party standing.

    Who are some of the biggest Democrat donors? Tort lawyers. Imagine a much more expansive universe of lawsuits where commercial and political interests sue on behalf of us little people.

    Interestingly, Roberts already wrote a dissent in another case that allowed third party standing. Will he flip-flop?

11. As this incident begins (begins?) a dispute between the First branch and the Third branch the Executive ought to sit this one out: let the Justices collectively stick up for themselves.

    In this wise, say: J’s. Thomas and Alito suit and mask up, baseball bats in hand, taking CJ Roberts along solely as a lookout, then go out to find Sen. Schumer in a dark Capitol Hill alleyway and break his kneecaps, tossing a slip opinion down as they leave to let him know he’s been served.

12. The Bongino Report’s hero banner links to a FoxNews article which links to Chief Justice Roberts’ statement:

    “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

13. Thanks, Brian Morgan, I was just about to post about Roberts’ statement. Here’s the link:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-rare-rebuke-schumer-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous

14. Thanks Brian and Kate. Should we believe Roberts is growing a spine? The plot thickens.

    On the other hand, Schumer’s target was not Roberts. Votes are fungible. If Roberts has already rendered a dissent against third party standing, but the two new justices haven’t, then it makes sense to go after them.

15. IMHO, Senate should move immediately to censure Schumer.

16. The problem is Trump goes after judges he disagrees with all time. He has tweeted often about how ‘unfair’ they are when they don’t agree with him. Recall he asked Sotomayor and Ginsberg to recuse themselves or for being ‘unfair’ because they were chosen by Obama.

    Recall the time Chief Justice John Roberts criticized Trump after he made comments in 2018 about an asylum case. Roberts said that the court doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” Roberts added that “The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

    An interesting side note to this is that Schumer was likely referencing Kavanaugh when he said: “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!”

    Kavanaugh, during the Senate hearings, said: Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. You sowed the wind and the country will reap the whirlwind.

17. Pistols, at dawn, and just for maximum drama, the venue is Weehawken, NJ. Big question: who are the seconds?

    Those were the days…

18. Montage, if your logical faculties are truly so limited that you are suggesting that President Trump’s tweets — whether or not he should have made them — somehow justify a Senator in making threats against sitting judges, you should go back to elementary school until your reasoning skills, morality and understanding of the rule of law develop to a more adult level. And while you’re at it, consider looking up the tu quoque fallacy.

19. Mrs Whatsit,

    I have to question your thinking skills if you think what Schumer said was meant as a physical threat. He’s using political rhetoric. I don’t agree with the rhetoric but neither do I agree when Trump goes after judges he disagrees with, which certainly can be just as dangerous. I bring up Trump because it’s hypocritical to get outraged about Schumer but to shrug when Trump does it time and time again.

    Both Schumer and Trump are using political rhetoric to rally their base. They have a right to do it and we have a right to criticize it. But let’s be consistent.

20. I have to question your mental faculties if you think what Schumer said was meant as a physical threat.

    You can question mine, too, while you are at it,. It was a physical threat although he probably expects ANTIFA thugs to carry it out. This summer, especially if RBG gives up or dies, will be marked by violence. Chuck Schumer is not going to be the one wielding the bike lock or baseball bat but they will be out there.

21. Montage is sounding like manju, coincidence?

22. Montage has jumped the Manju.

23. “The problem is Trump goes after judges he disagrees with all time.”

    When has Trump THREATENED a judge? Criticism is not a threat. Expressing displeasure is not a threat. Even questioning a judge’s integrity is not a threat. When has Trump actually done anything equivalent to what Schumer did?

    You know, a lot of Trump-haters out there whine and complain about how his supporters can’t be persuaded. That they won’t listen to reason or pay attention to facts. The reality is that a lot of Trump criticism is unpersuasive is because it is shoddily thought out, poorly argued, and willful ignorant of relevant facts.

    Mike

24. Another reason to keep the Democrats and Socialists as a permanent minority in the Senate; Senator Schumer logic and Montage apologetics.

25. Montage:

    Mrs Whatsit wrote of Schumer that he was “making threats against sitting judges.” There’s no modifier “physical” in her comment. So why are you inserting it?

    And here’s a question for you: what did Schumer mean when he said to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh “you will reap the whirlwind,” “you will pay the price,” and “you won’t know what hit you”? SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. They are not elected. They are not subject (supposedly) to political pressures. What they are subject to – and it’s one of the only things a senator like Schumer, who hopes to be leader of the Senate someday because he hopes the Democrats will win control of the Senate in 2020 – can threaten justices with (other than physical harm to them or their families) is impeachment.

    Schumer has already shown he and his party are fully capable of impeaching someone for political reasons. Is that what he’s threatening? He and his party have also shown they are fully capable of getting a succession of women to lie and accuse a justice, or a would-be justice (Kavanaugh, of course) of sexual assault. Is that what he’s threatening? Or, of course, he could indeed be threatening physical harm, although I don’t think he specifically means that. He has plenty of other arrows in his quiver, and he is almost certainly referring to the ones I’ve mentioned, simply because it’s hard to think of other ways he could hurt the justices, who are not up for election.

    Trump has not ever said anything remotely comparable, to the best of my knowledge. He has criticized judges (see this), but that’s a far FAR cry from what Schumer did. If that’s what you mean by “goes after” judges, you are comparing apples and oranges. Or apples and poisoned apples.

26. Bernie Bros have been known to shoot Congressmen and attempt to blow up ICE facilities. Those weren’t acts of speech Montage.

27. Mike K:

    Please read my comment just above this one to see what I think Schumer is probably threatening.

28. I would doubt that Montage is Manju because he makes a rational argument. Manju just blathers.

    I actually agree with Montage on this. Trump should avoid criticizing specific judges. Specific decisions, though are fair game.

29. Roy Nathanson:

    I also don’t think Trump should criticize judges.

    But that has nothing to do with what Schumer did. Please read my comment above. Schumer’s offenses are FAR worse, and of a different type and degree, than Trump’s in this regard.

30. If only we could have polite discourse. Maybe then those unnamed Supreme Court Justices would vote in keeping with the “arc of history” and the “march of human progress.” Maybe then, we tolerant, progressive, enlightened, and thinking people could enjoy the fruits of a just society. But until then we must gently encourage those miscreants to repent from their evil ways and deeds, or just hound them, shame them, threaten them with “whirlwinds” (think Dresden or Hamburg or Cologne).

    How’s that sound Montage and Roy N?

31. Schumer scares me; not just because he is so often “over the top” with some of his comments (this post is a good example of such). But, he scares me because of his supporters. I work in New York City and so many people there seem to think the world of him. They all seem to think that he is “fighting for them” against the rest of the US. And they love him for it.

    I’d assume that part of this speech of his is meant for that NYC home town crowd as well as getting his threat out to the judges. He is doing that “tough talk” they love in NYC so much

    Lastly, Schumer is one who has yet to meet a camera that he does NOT want to get in front of. Ha! I’d even bet that he has more years in front of a camera than his famous cousin – Amy Schumer

32. . . . Sotomayor and Ginsberg to recuse themselves or for being ‘unfair’ because they were chosen by Obama.

    Ha, or ahhhhhh, bullshit. Both Ginsberg and Sotomayor have spoken with animus in public (outside their judicial role) against Pres. Trump. Look it up. Had nothing to do with Obama (ignoring that Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton).

33. It really isn’t surprising upChuck Schumer employs a person whose mendacity is blatant in this manner. Fish rots from the head down and like seeks like.

34. I also don’t think Trump should criticize judges.

    I think he should slice them to pieces. Reducing the social unassailability of the judiciary is job one. It’s just threatening to have them whacked which is beyond the pale.

35. Neo,

    If the criticism of Schumer is that he was simply saying nasty things about judges and NOT making a physical threat then I don’t really understand the criticism that what he said is dangerous. I only assumed Mrs Whatsit could have interpreted the threat was of a physical nature because otherwise the threat Schumer made is no more than populist [ugly] political rhetoric.

    Justice Roberts also hinted that he viewed Schumer’s rhetoric as physical by using the words ‘threatening’ or ‘dangerous’ so I do think some conservatives think that.

    If Schumer meant he would try to impeach them then I don’t find that dangerous because judges can be impeached. And as I have noted a couple times here, impeachments are always political. Hamilton explicitly says this in Federalist Papers 65 – that they are political [he put the word in all caps].

    My reading is Schumer meant Democrats will rise up and take back the Senate and WH and he might attempt to stack the court. So a political hit. That’s not really a dangerous threat. That’s politics.

    Trump’s comments and tweet about ‘unfair’ judges is problematic as well. He has frequently called the Ninth Circuit ‘horrible’, ‘terrible’, ‘dangerous’. ‘Political’ and ‘using judicial overreach’. Recall when he said a judge was biased because he had ‘Mexican heritage’? I just don’t see how these are acceptable but Schumer’s words are not. Unless someone thinks Schumer was making a physical threat.

36. Montage spouting bovine excrement? I’m shocked. It’s hard to out-Manju Manju, but Montage has done it tonight.

37. If the criticism of Schumer is that he was simply saying nasty things about judges and NOT making a physical threat

    He was making a threat. We’re all amused at the case of vertigo you’ll have when you stop spinning.

38. “This clip is freely available and both Goodman and Schumer must know that. But they don’t care, apparently. They would rather lie, and they believe (perhaps rightly) that they will get away with it:” – Neo

    It’s not often I feel impelled to contradict The Boss, but there is no “perhaps” about it.
    The Democrats & their Media (which one is the dog and which one the tail?) know that they can lie with impunity regardless of the hard facts, as has been demonstrated many times.

39. “I have to question your thinking skills if you think what Schumer said was meant as a physical threat. He’s using political rhetoric. I don’t agree with the rhetoric but neither do I agree when Trump goes after judges he disagrees with . . . .”[Mrs Whatsit @ 8:06 pm]

    If I remember correctly I have to question your thinking skills. Trump criticized Ginsberg and Sotomayor, he did not “go after” them; Schumer, by contrast, threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Rhetorical or not, there is a decided and substantial difference between the two.

40. Art Deco

    Neo doesn’t think he was specifically making a physical threat. Read her response. It’s well thought out.

    T
    Rhetorical or not, there is a decided and substantial difference between the two.

    I see your point but it depends how one defines ‘go after’. If it’s with a threat of impeachment or something of that nature I do see it as chilling at the worst. Otherwise, just politcal rhetoric that he probably should not have said.

41. Schumer made a threat against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, period. It may or may not have been a threat of violence and we can presume that Schumer didn’t mean it as such, but that won’t stop some sociopath like James Hodgkinson from committing an act of violence on his behalf. This is why Roberts used the word dangerous, and he is correct.

    Not that it matters, but Montage quotes Kavanaugh stating that “… the country will reap the whirlwind.” That is, a degradation in the polity of the country at large. See the difference???

    I’ll add one more non violent avenue to Neo’s list. They can go after the justices’ family members in various uncomfortable ways.

    A weird thing about the Schumer statement is that he says, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” So the phrase “have released the whirlwind” is past tense. This case won’t be decided for weeks or months. Does Schumer have sources inside the court, or is he just reading the tea leaves of the public presentation of the case?

42. Montage on March 4, 2020 at 8:52 pm said:
    Neo,

    If the criticism of Schumer is that he was simply saying nasty things about judges and NOT making a physical threat then I don’t really understand the criticism that what he said is dangerous. I only assumed Mrs Whatsit could have interpreted the threat was of a physical nature because otherwise the threat Schumer made is no more than populist [ugly] political rhetoric.
    * * *
    Tomorrow’s game will be to see how many of the talking points Montage gives us here are followed by the Democrat Press and bloggers.
    We may be getting a heads-up on the Journolist memo!

    My take: Schumer is perfectly willing to carry out the political threats Neo outlined (they are still threats, even if not physical).
    IF the five conservative justices rule for the Louisiana law, rather than for the abortion providers, then all of them will be in physical danger, just as Scalise was, and Schumer & Crew will deny all culpability, as Mike K explained.

    Only Republicans are to be attacked for their inflammatory political rhetoric; it’s a rule.

43. “I also don’t think Trump should criticize judges.” [Neo @ 8:26]

    But I offer that Ginsberg is a special case because she voluntarily voiced off-the-bench but on-the-record comments about her negative beliefs in a possible Trump administration. She apologized for them, but she has yet to rescind them.
    She voluntarily tainted her own impartiality and Trump suggested that she not sit on any cases involving his administration.

    I, for one, see no problem with that suggestion.

44. Neo,

    I agree, but because Schumer went beyond criticism and made threats. Without question, this was worse.

    But, I still don’t like Trump’s tendency to attack individuals instead of actions… especially when those persons are in one of “separate but equal” branches of government.

    And, of course, I detest when members of Congress do the same, criticizing Trump as a person, instead of his policies.

45. Montage on March 4, 2020 at 7:30 pm said:
    …
    An interesting side note to this is that Schumer was likely referencing Kavanaugh when he said: “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!”

    Kavanaugh, during the Senate hearings, said: Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. You sowed the wind and the country will reap the whirlwind.
    * * *
    A tweet embedded in the Fox story noted the reference to Hosea, which Schumer didn’t quote correctly:

    Is no one going to point out that on top of everything else Schumer badly mangled a famous line from the Bible (Hosea)? “They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind”

    Probably the most metal line in the Bible

    However, I think Montage is right about its origins, and it will probably be a Talking Point tomorrow that Kavanaugh is just getting what he deserves.
    So, when somebody “sows the wind,” are their victims forever responsible for making sure the whirlwind never blows?
    Or is Schumer intent on striking down all the laws in the kingdom to get at the devil?

    Or, perhaps he he is just remarking that SCOTUS is on the verge of getting hit by the Democrat-created whirlwind that gets called down on anyone seeking to limit in any way the right to kill babies in America.

    * * *

    A small addition from the Fox story, which is probably what Schumer is trying to conflate with his direct remarks to the Justices.

    Schumer did not specifically explain what “price” the justices would face. During the rally, however, Schumer did go on to describe how Republican lawmakers could be impacted politically.

    “We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues that you’re gonna be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again!” he said. Earlier in his address, Schumer had accused Republican legislatures of “waging a war on women” and said reproductive rights are “under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history.”

    Release the Kraken! — if you really think it will be on your side.

46. “I see your point but it depends how one defines ‘go after’.” [Montage @ 9″20]

    Riiiiight!

    “Nice court you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it” is not a threat either.

47. “I also don’t think Trump should criticize judges.”

    Why not? I’m being perfectly serious. Why should ANYONE be reflexively safe from criticism?

    Mike

48. steve walsh on March 4, 2020 at 7:32 pm said:
    Pistols, at dawn, and just for maximum drama, the venue is Weehawken, NJ. Big question: who are the seconds?

    Those were the days…
    * * *
    And, thankfully, they are over.
    However, attacks by masked thugs on mostly defenseless opponents (or just supporters of opponents) are a poor substitution.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/duel-history-dueling-america/

    https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/famous-duels-from-american-history/

49. Shumah is a traitorous chaser easing shonda and an absolute disgrace, and his daughter who married a shiksa is worse.

50. Steven Hayward points out, once again, that “if liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all.”
    Schumer sent a tweet just last month inviting Chief Justice Roberts to assert the independence of the Court against President Trump’s criticism, which he labelled “attacks” (sorry, Montage: they were still not threats).

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/chief-justice-roberts-throws-down-on-chuck-schumer.php

    To be sure, President Trump has made some ill-advised statements about the partisanship of some judges (“Obama judges,” or “Democrat judges”) and has also drawn a rebuke from the Chief Justice, but no one has said his statements were “dangerous,” mostly because Trump never threatened any judge in any way (nor has he to my knowledge defied any adverse judicial order). It will be interesting to see whether the media will hold Sen. Schumer to the same standard of outrage they apply to Trump.

    Chaser: Schumer tweeted this less than a month ago:

51. Here is a list, compiled by an outfit apparently hostile to Trump, of “attacks” on judges by Trump.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts

    Presumably this is the worst they could find. They simply are not equivalent to what Schumer said, and I don’t see how anyone could both intelligently and in good faith say that they are.

    For the record, btw, I think at least some of Trump’s attacks were out of line.

52. I hate to be the one to tell you this, Monty, but lawyers, particularly litigators, criticize judges all the time. They even write articles with their criticisms and publish them in law reviews. I see no reason why non-lawyers, yea, verily, the President himself, shouldn’t be free to criticize judges. Is there an exception to the First Amendment for criticism of judges?

    BTW, since Justice Sotomayor said that a “wise Latina” would come to a different (and better) decision in a case than some old white guy, why shouldn’t the President think that a Hispanic judge might come to a different (and worse) decision than some old white guy.

53. From Legal Insurrection:
    Gersh204 | March 4, 2020 at 9:58 pm
    Schumer’s statement was an open invitation to the violent leftists and anarchists to target the justices, their families, and their homes. The correct response is to force his resignation which will signal those same forces that we are ready for them.
    * * *
    Gee, Democrats would never be so uncaring as to do THAT would they?

    Or, maybe they would.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/03/03/los-angeles-district-attorney-sides-with-black-lives-matter-over-her-husband/

    The protesters, who claim that Lacey isn’t soft enough on crime and doesn’t prosecute police officers enough, were chanting and waving signs outside her house early in the morning [about 5:30 am] when one of them rang the doorbell. In response, her husband opened the door and aimed a gun at them, saying “I will shoot you, get off of my porch. I don’t care who you are.” Before closing the door, he added that he was calling the police on the protesters.

    At a press conference the next day, Lacey said that she was “profoundly sorry” for her husband’s behavior, while also somewhat defending herself by saying “I do not believe it is fair or right for protesters to show up at the home of people who dedicate their lives to public service.” Both Lacey and her husband themselves are African-American.

    Schumer is expecting the conservative justices to run scared, like Democrats do when they are challenged. I wonder if Mr. Lacey approved her message?

    BTW, several Ace commenters pointed out that this was not “protected” speech, as Schumer was not on the floor of Congress at the time he said it.

54. Montage:

    You wrote:

    If the criticism of Schumer is that he was simply saying nasty things about judges and NOT making a physical threat then I don’t really understand the criticism that what he said is dangerous.

    Let me spell it out for you once again.

    The words “nasty things” are very generic, and can cover anything from “Gorsuch should be killed” to “I think Gorsuch made a stupid decision.” Schumer said a very specific type type of “nasty thing”: a threat. That’s different in kind from just a garden-variety criticism.

    Surely you understand that.

    The type of threat Schumer made is unclear, but it was absolutely a threat. It might have been physical, and it might definitely have been (considering he was addressing a crowd of demonstrators) an invitation and encouragement for the listeners to get physical against the two named justices. It wasn’t explicitly physical, but it was explicitly a threat that could be construed as physical.

    But it’s my opinion he wasn’t stating a physical threat, although he certainly didn’t exclude it and a person could validly hear it as such without it being explicit. What I believe he meant was a threat (as I said before) that included something within the power of the Congress: impeachment for political reasons, if the justices don’t vote the way he says they should. That’s an unconscionable threat and a dangerous one. Another thing he might be threatening has happened to justices before: untruthful accusations of sexual abuse. That’s a threat I would take very very seriously, and one that was almost successfully used against Kavanaugh, in a public, nasty, and duplicitous manner in order to take him down.

    You also wrote:

    I only assumed Mrs Whatsit could have interpreted the threat was of a physical nature because otherwise the threat Schumer made is no more than populist [ugly] political rhetoric.

    Wrong, as I have already explained. Schumer is saying something that I’ve not heard from politicians before when speaking of and to a SCOTUS justice or justices, and what’s more as the Minority Leader of the Senate in an election year he is speaking from a position of great potential power.

55. Interesting speculations from CTH Treeper:
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/04/democrat-senator-chuck-schumer-threatens-supreme-court-justices-chief-justice-roberts-responds/comment-page-3/#comment-7907428

    trapper says:
    March 4, 2020 at 11:50 pm
    Schumer is trying to bait one or more conservative justices into doing or saying something he can use as a basis to bring an impeachment action against them in the Senate. It has been a power grab by the House all along, and Schumer is in on it, beginning with Pelosi’s claim last May that the House is the superior part of government. They are trying to morph our system into a parliamentary type system with a president that serves at the pleasure of the House and a compliant judiciary that can be removed any time they want.

    But that isn’t the real issue. Some would say this is all about abortion, but even that is a trojan horse.

    The issue that underlies the abortion fight is this: when does the constitutional right to life attach? Conception? Birth? Somewhere in between? Because if the right to life is transitory, and the time it attaches can be arbitrarily assigned, it can be just as arbitrarily terminated. Involuntary euthanasia for the elderly at a specified age is what they have their sights on. Listen to them closely, and they tell you this all the time. No medical treatment for the elderly. Send them home with a pill. Value of a statistical life year (VSLY). All of it profoundly non Christian, anti-humanistic, and un-American.

56. AesopFan:

    I agree that the threat from Schumer implies either impeachment or sexual allegations against the justices.

57. MBunge:

    I have no problem with a president offering a reasoned criticism of a justice’s decisions. I don’t think personal criticism of a justice, or calling a justice biased, are good ideas for a president. I think the office of justice should be respected.

    I also thought that when Obama criticized a SCOTUS decision, with the justices sitting at the SOTU speech as a captive audience, that move of his was very wrong and disrespectful. It would have been okay for him to have criticized their decision in some other setting.

58. @LeClerc, re: “Roberts should step out of milquetoast mode and make a firm reply to Cheesy Chuck.”

    I don’t think Roberts is ever likely to do that.

    @Neo, re: “Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare rebuke to Schumer….”

    Rare or not, I’d call that a pretty mild rebuke.

    Shortly before the first decision on Obama care, something happened that took the steel out of Roberts’ spine, if there ever was any. Hard to know what exactly happened. Could’ve been a horse’s head in the bed.

    At any rate, he’s been playing the part of good little custodian of the court’s neutrality, ever since.

    I’m not sure what the Chief Justice could do, to go to war with Schumer over this. But given Roberts’ style from ObamaCare until now, I don’t expect to see anything more vigorous than…well, what we’ve just seen.

59. avi @ 10:17 said:
    “Shumah is a traitorous chaser easing shonda and an absolute disgrace, and & his daughter who married a shiksa is worse.”

    I object to the anti-Christian language.

60. I think the office of justice should be respected.

    If they wish to be respected, they’d better be respectable. Maybe 1/3 of the judges who’ve sat on that court in the last 60-odd years earned that respect.

61. I also thought that when Obama criticized a SCOTUS decision, with the justices sitting at the SOTU speech as a captive audience, that move of his was very wrong and disrespectful. It would have been okay for him to have criticized their decision in some other setting.

    The form wasn’t the problem. The substance was.

    [Be agreeable if Presidents sent a written text to Congress rather than making a public address. The written text was the norm over the period extending from 1801 to 1912.].

62. Neo doesn’t think he was specifically making a physical threat. Read her response. It’s well thought out.

    Neo’s not my mother, so I don’t care. It was a threat.

    And Laurence Tribe’s just cut you and the rest of the Correct-the-Record crew off at the knees.

63. Physical threat or not, Schumer’s words sound to me as if they’re giving license to crazies (someone has mentioned Antifa, and there are others out there) to act against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. We have already seen people chasing Republicans out of restaurants and showing up at Republicans’ doors at night, which represents a major change in the way politics is played. If Shumer was doing this he needs to be censured by the Senate. If not, he needs to retract his threat and call off the crazies.

64. R. C:

    “Shortly before the first decision on Obama care, something happened that took the steel out of Roberts’ spine, if there ever was any.

    I must disagree about Roberts I think his decision about O-care was 100% correct. It is a tax: It is a tax upon the young and healthy to pay for the healthcare of the old and sick. It should have been struck down for other reasons, e.g., that it was a direct, but unapportioned tax, or that it didn’t conform to the rules for enacting taxes, but there’s no question that Obamacare is a tax.

65. “…for other reasons…”

    Not so sure. But maybe…

    One of the benefits of the A-ROFL-CA is that the American people were able to discover first hand and hands down (and leg up?)—that is if they wished to discover it (that is, if they were paying attention)—how much politicians (in this case Obama Yes Men, AKA OY-Men—perhaps, especially OY-men?) both enjoyed (and enjoy) lying to the American people and are so extraordinarily proud of doing so (and for extra brownie points, believe—and are not ashamed to say so—how stupid they believe the American people are).

    One sees the same thing (once again, if one wished to see it) when Ben Rhodes oooh-ed and aaah-ed about how stupid journalists are (well, he does have a point, I guess) AND how easy it is to pull the wool over their eyes and ears, AND how easy it is to manipulate them to create an echo chamber that rebleats and repeats the administration’s (in this case, Obama’s—gosh, just like above; wow! what a coincidence!!) talking points (i.e., talking prevarications) about, well practically anything but in this the JCPOA (make that JCPO-ROFL-A).

    Now that the giant Russian hoax onion is being peeled back layer by pungent layer to portray the extraordinary panorama of Obama administration cunning, cleverness and criminality, one may (once again if one wishes) see the extent of the glorious chicanery—or, if you wish, the effervescent evil—that so smoothly bubbled through, inundated actually, the USA during those incredible years.

    Once again, if one wishes to see it.

    Which is to say, all in all, that the Obama administration may perhaps prove to be the biggest blessing in disguise evah, in the history of American presidents…if “…for other reasons…”.

    That is, if one wishes to see it.

66. “That is, if one wishes to see it.” – Barry

    Or if Google lets them see it.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/big_techs_civilizationbusting_bias_.html

    What if I told you that Big Tech could have been responsible for President Trump’s impeachment? What about the credible expert who warns that Big Tech can shift up to 15 million votes in November? Note here that over the last eight elections and 32 years, no president has won by more than 9.5 million votes. Shifting 15 million is easily enough to turn most any modern election.
    …
    The aforementioned expert, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Democrat-favoring liberal who is the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, has warned for years that “Big Tech companies now have unprecedented power to sway elections.”
    …
    The difference is that with Big Tech collecting information on tens of millions of users, it can devise algorithms perfectly suited to the manipulation effort. It also can better effect an illusion of impartiality (Google just delivers what you search for, right? Yeah…).

    How effective is this? “As Epstein’s previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their [Google] +search results are unbiased,” reported Breitbart last year.

    Dr. Epstein’s testimony about his report is here.
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Testimony.pdf

67. Laurence Tribe isn’t the only Democrat that Schumer lost.
    They waffle a little bit, but are pretty clear that what Schumer said is what most people heard.

    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/03/05/cnns-avlon-no-question-schumers-comments-crossed-the-line-sounded-like-a-threat/

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/05/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-schumer-remarks-inappropriate-it-did-sound-like-a-physical-threat/

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>