A sitting member of congress calls for open defiance of the Supreme Court

[hislegacy]

Yeah, what Schumer said was completely inappropriate and offensive. He should be castigated and rebuked.

QFT - there was a call for censure at one point, but the chance of a Democratic Leader being censured in a Democratic controlled congress, IMHO, is minimal.

Schumer Faces Rare Censure for Threatening Supreme Court Justices

Sen. Cruz Co-Sponsors Resolution to Censure Sen. Schumer for Threatening Supreme Court Justices | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

Schumer Used Violent Rhetoric To Sic A Mob On Supreme Court Justices

It did result in a rare rebuke by the Chief Justice

Chuck Schumer's comments about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts - CNNPolitics

 

[KCfromNC]

QFT - there was a call for censure at one point, but the chance of a Democratic Leader being censured in a Democratic controlled congress, IMHO, is minimal.

Schumer Faces Rare Censure for Threatening Supreme Court Justices

Sen. Cruz Co-Sponsors Resolution to Censure Sen. Schumer for Threatening Supreme Court Justices | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

Schumer Used Violent Rhetoric To Sic A Mob On Supreme Court Justices

It did result in a rare rebuke by the Chief Justice

Chuck Schumer's comments about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts - CNNPolitics

Interesting that instead of quoting the actual threats, we're instead reading right wing [mis?]characterizations of what Schumer said.

 

[Yttrium]

Interesting that instead of quoting the actual threats, we're instead reading right wing [mis?]characterizations of what Schumer said.

"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 is fully aware that he said the wrong things, and he apologized.

"I should not have used the words I used. They didn't come out the way I intended, my point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices stripped away at a woman's right to choose."
"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."

Still, a censure would be useful to remind him to be more careful in what he says.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I’m advocating women do what they feel is best for them. What part of that did you not understand?

Are you really suggesting that whatever a woman feels is best for them you would approve of them doing? I doubt that is the case. What if a woman feels it is best for herself that she shoots you? What if she feels it is best for herself that she spread communicable diseases to as many people as possible? I think blanket statements about people just doing whatever one feels is best fails to consider that people are not in isolation to the rest of the world and that there are those that might feel that antisocial behavior is best for themselves, so we ought not give anyone carte blanche . I think to decide whether to do a thing that is illegal or not ought to be something one considers strongly by weighing the facts of the situation and not something one does just because of a feeling one has. As for abortion, if a woman wants one today a woman can get one in the US. I pray that no woman wants one, but the Supreme Court ruling doesn't stop a woman from having an abortion as it does not make abortion illegal in the United Startes. The decision simply contends that it is correcting an erroneous prior ruling that attempted to invent a right that did not actually exist. As for unelected people the Court is saying that abortion is rightly a matter taken up in legislation by those that have been elected not to be confused with unelected justices inventing rights from thin air. I can recall many who now are upset by this ruling contending in the past that when the Supreme Court rules it is the law of the land. Then insisting that anyone opposed should just deal with it and be quiet as the Court has spoken. Now if those opposing this ruling want to change their tune and argue against giving up their position and argue instead that the Supreme Court majority is not really infallible after all and old rulings can be rightly reversed, I welcome their newly found wisdom. I suspect though that won't be the case and that as soon as a ruling goes their way and I object to it they will tell me how much wiser the justices are than I. How their expertise is so vastly greater, and I am just a humble citizen with so little understanding of the constitution and its intricacies because I haven't gone to law school etc. etc. etc.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Are you really suggesting that whatever a woman feels is best for them you would approve of them doing? I doubt that is the case. What if a woman feels it is best for herself that she shoots you? What if she feels it is best for herself that she spread communicable diseases to as many people as possible? I think blanket statements about people just doing whatever one feels is best fails to consider that people are not in isolation to the rest of the world and that there are those that might feel that antisocial behavior is best for themselves, so we ought not give anyone carte blanche . I think to decide whether to do a thing that is illegal or not ought to be something one considers strongly by weighing the facts of the situation and not something one does just because of a feeling one has. As for abortion, if a woman wants one today a woman can get one in the US. I pray that no woman wants one, but the Supreme Court ruling doesn't stop a woman from having an abortion as it does not make abortion illegal in the United Startes. The decision simply contends that it is correcting an erroneous prior ruling that attempted to invent a right that did not actually exist. As for unelected people the Court is saying that abortion is rightly a matter taken up in legislation by those that have been elected not to be confused with unelected justices inventing rights from thin air. I can recall many who now are upset by this ruling contending in the past that when the Supreme Court rules it is the law of the land. Then insisting that anyone opposed should just deal with it and be quiet as the Court has spoken. Now if those opposing this ruling want to change their tune and argue against giving up their position and argue instead that the Supreme Court majority is not really infallible after all and old rulings can be rightly reversed, I welcome their newly found wisdom. I suspect though that won't be the case and that as soon as a ruling goes their way and I object to it they will tell me how much wiser the justices are than I. How their expertise is so vastly greater, and I am just a humble citizen with so little understanding of the constitution and its intricacies because I haven't gone to law school etc. etc. etc.

I said what I said.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I said what I said.

Me too.

 

[Rachel20]

The left has exposed themselves. They're not really for liberty (vax mandates) or for the poor (high inflation, soaring homelessness). They're simply for whatever they personally want and will talk out both sides of their mouths to get it. We must accept Biden's presidency (because law), but not the SCOTUS ruling (because yuk). I personally don't trust the right either, just saying

 

[hislegacy]

Interesting that instead of quoting the actual threats, we're instead reading right wing [mis?]characterizations of what Schumer said.

I was sure to include references from CNN and a video of Schumer actually making threats - criticism rose so fast and hard he apologized.

Chief Justice Roberts characterized it as a threat.
CNN characterized it as a threat
Congressional leadership characterized it as a threat
Chuck Schumer apologized for threatening court members

I'll stay with their characterizations.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes...and people are willing to attempt to assinate a Supreme Court Justice in front of his family to further their cause. So don't underestimate what the left is willing to justify to fulfill then ends.

But they used to march around displaying the "Peace" sign not so long ago. I wonder what happened.

 

[Aldebaran]

I’m pretty sure that’s what everyone believes. If a law isn’t just, people don’t feel obligated to follow it outside of not wanting to be arrested or fined.

Sounds like you're advocating for anarchy. Is that what you want?

 

[Aldebaran]

QFT - there was a call for censure at one point, but the chance of a Democratic Leader being censured in a Democratic controlled congress, IMHO, is minimal.

Schumer Faces Rare Censure for Threatening Supreme Court Justices

Sen. Cruz Co-Sponsors Resolution to Censure Sen. Schumer for Threatening Supreme Court Justices | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

Schumer Used Violent Rhetoric To Sic A Mob On Supreme Court Justices

It did result in a rare rebuke by the Chief Justice

Chuck Schumer's comments about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts - CNNPolitics

When they lose the majority in November, then the chance to censure him, and maybe even have him removed from office, will come.

 

[hislegacy]

I’m pretty sure that’s what everyone believes. If a law isn’t just, people don’t feel obligated to follow it outside of not wanting to be arrested or fined.

I think there is a growing faction that believes just that, and their beliefs are being aided by people like Democratic Congress people who see no issue issuing open threats to justices and defying the courts.

Allowed to mature, it will end in anarchy.

 

[Aldebaran]

"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 is fully aware that he said the wrong things, and he apologized.

"I should not have used the words I used. They didn't come out the way I intended, my point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices stripped away at a woman's right to choose."
"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."

Still, a censure would be useful to remind him to be more careful in what he says.

Schumer's explanation falls flat. When he tells 2 specific justices by name that they "won't know what hit" them, he clearly wasn't talking about political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans. He was addressing the 2 justices who are appointed for life and are non-political, so they wouldn't be suffering "political consequences" either.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

But they used to march around displaying the "Peace" sign not so long ago. I wonder what happened.

Progress

 

[KCfromNC]

"I should not have used the words I used. They didn't come out the way I intended, my point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices stripped away at a woman's right to choose."
"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."

Seems weird to quote the guy saying that there was no threats made as evidence he threatened someone.

 

[KCfromNC]

The left has exposed themselves. They're not really for liberty (vax mandates) or for the poor (high inflation, soaring homelessness). They're simply for whatever they personally want and will talk out both sides of their mouths to get it. We must accept Biden's presidency (because law), but not the SCOTUS ruling (because yuk). I personally don't trust the right either, just saying

This level of spin is quite impressive given what actually happened - two presidents each elected by a minority of voters appointed a bunch of activist justices, and they are now being exposed for the political hacks they are. The Roberts court is now known for the one which has lost the trust of the American public based on their actions ... and the spin is "the left has exposed themselves" for seeing these facts.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was sure to include references from CNN and a video of Schumer actually making threats - criticism rose so fast and hard he apologized.

Chief Justice Roberts characterized it as a threat.
CNN characterized it as a threat
Congressional leadership characterized it as a threat
Chuck Schumer apologized for threatening court members

I'll stay with their characterizations.

An interesting list of assertions, but for some reason missing actual quotes from the guy. You'd think if they were as obviously bad as implied, we'd be reading those instead of a list of random people who said stuff which also isn't quoted.

It provides an interesting comparison against, say, post 84, which has the actual words from the guy showing it wasn't a threat. But hey, no reason to think what the guy actually said is relevant to talking about what he said. Facts will just get in the way of the desired conclusion.

 

[hislegacy]

An interesting list of assertions, but for some reason missing actual quotes from the guy. You'd think if they were as obviously bad as implied, we'd be reading those instead of a list of random people who said stuff which also isn't quoted.

It provides an interesting comparison against, say, post 84, which has the actual words from the guy showing it wasn't a threat. But hey, no reason to think what the guy actually said is relevant to talking about what he said. Facts will just get in the way of the desired conclusion.

OK, thank you for your opinion. Even Schumer realized it was a threat and apologized for it. But you are certainly free to dispute Schumer if you think you know better than he does.

 

[evoeth]

First we saw Church Schumer publicly call out specific justices if they voted against what he wanted in ROE.

and now we have a Democratic member of Congress openly calling for defiance of the Court Ruling.

“Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us,” Waters told journalists at the Court. “The hell with the Supreme Court—we will defy them.

Please note: The quote is well within forum guidelines:

• Quotes in the linked article containing profanity will be from public figures such as political leaders, and not in the commentary by the author of the article or a non-public figure.

It is a direct quote from a political leader.

Here is my point. The Court is the final authority on laws. What gives these Democratic Leaders the right to first threaten the Justices and then call for open defiance of law?

Do you support them?

Every year for the last 20 years or so Republican lawmakers in various states passed anti Roe legislation and every year they got slapped down or stayed.


I can't recall you complaining.

FYI it's not defiance of the supreme court she's calling for. It's defiance of the state laws, obviously.

 

[renniks]

Yes.

Women should do what’s best for them in this situation, not what an unelected panel of lawyers decides is best for them.

So I guess the same would apply to any new gun control laws?