╌>

Justice Roberts confronts leftist vitriol

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  4 years ago  •  143 comments


Justice Roberts confronts leftist vitriol
"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," Roberts said in a statement. "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


As the SCOTUS considers a major abortion case (  June Medical Services v. Russo) this past Wednesday morning, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer took to the stage to address a mob of angitated pro-abortion activists. He said, to the shock of all decent Americans: “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."

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/03/04/chief-justice-roberts-rebukes-schumer-for-threatening-statements-against-gorsuch-kavanaugh.html


chuckschumer4.png


Imagine threatening or trying to intimidate the Supreme Court?

Do progressives know any bounds of civility?


At least Justice Roberts stood tall yesterday! In what the media calls "a rare rebuke", Roberts said "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."

Make no mistake, it was a careless & dangerous thing for Schumer to do, but he is after all pandering to a very vile segment of society. Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Schumer, tried to walk it all back calling it a kind of "misinterpretation" of what Schumer said. There is no misinterpretation. Schumer was threatening the Supreme Court and had named two Justices specifically. What was more frightening was that one could hear the wild applause from the crowd!



We all have to follow Justice Roberts example. If we don't confront and put an end to these radical attempts to control this nation we will lose our freedom and our way of life.


ESTDAGbXcAEFr14?format=jpg&name=900x900



I think it's time for the US Senate to censure Chuck Schumer.





Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

" A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.".....Abraham Lincoln

Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
1.2  squiggy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 years ago

The anti-gun left continues to celebrate their violent inclinations.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  squiggy @1.2    4 years ago

Like the democrat politician in Colorado liking the idea of spreading corona virus to her political opposition at MAGA rallies

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    4 years ago

There is no law that will end abortion. There are only potential laws that will make it unsafe again. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 years ago

We are talking about threatening Justices on the Supreme Court. Where is the outrage?

On every news show democrats should be asked if they would condemn it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 years ago

You are "outraged" about Democrats every day. Without exception. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 years ago

I'd like to see the answer to his question John - Where is your outrage over a Congress person threatening a member of the Supreme Court?  Or ANY court for that matter?  Is it OK with you????

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 years ago

Let's not make it personal and lets not try and derail the conversation. If you don't want to defend or denounce Schumer's comments you can go elsewhere.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  cjcold  replied to    4 years ago

Trump and the far, far right wing idiotic fascists enrage me on a daily basis.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 years ago
There is no law that will end abortion. There are only potential laws that will make it unsafe again. 

So old Chuckie was just babbling like the idiot he is?

Cool.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

Again, watch the people who freak out  about Trump give this a pass...

Schumer is litterally threatening justicies of the Supreme Court. Liberals freak out when Trump so much as criticizes a Court and now the Democratic minority leader threatens two justices and the reponse is crickets.

It's just goes to show  that the "outrage" about Trump is almost completeley a sham from the left. There's no principle behind it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 years ago
It's just goes to show  that the "outrage" about Trump is almost completeley a sham

total nonsense

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to    4 years ago

Wally, as we all know, you won't get an answer to that question from John.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 years ago

Sure John

Liberals response to A democratic senator actually threatening Supreme Court justices is crickets..

... if trump said the exact same thing about Ginsburg and sotomayor liberals would be brimming over  with “outrage.”  Liberals only care about something if it can be used to abuse trump.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to    4 years ago
Do you support Schumer's remarks? Yes or no?

According to ….. "Certain Persons" jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg ...… those would be "Stupid Questions" ! jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to    4 years ago

Schumer office says he was referring to defeating conservative senators who voted to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh at the ballot box. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    4 years ago

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said to a crowd of abortion-rights advocates. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Where John - just WHERE in Schumer's statement is he referring to defeating conservative senators??  Where are their names?  What states are they from?  What committee's are they on?

How does "I want to tell you, GORSUCH" and "I want to tell you, KAVANAUGH" even MENTION conservative senators?  How does "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price" - "YOU have" and "YOU will" - not even close to referring to defeating any/all senators?

"YOU won't know what hit you" is a reference to which senator that the Dems/Libs want to eliminate???

And you have the audacity to say others are blind?????

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.6    4 years ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.6    4 years ago

Yep, clearly a threat delivered directly at Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Schumers mealy mouthed excuses for why he actually did it are a pathetically sad attempt to cover his tracks.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.7    4 years ago

👍👍👍👍

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.6    4 years ago

👍👍👍👍

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    4 years ago
Schumer office says he was referring to defeating conservative senators who voted to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh at the ballot box. 

Gee, I wonder about the sheer gullibility of any idiot stupid enough to believe THAT "explanation".

If that were the case, as claimed, it was POINTLESS to point out members of SCOTUS at all.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    4 years ago

Deflecting so you do not have to answer the question JR? All you needed to do was say yes or no and you could/would not do it. That's okay because it was pretty much expected anyway. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.12    4 years ago

I did answer the question. Schumer's office says he was misunderstood. 

People can believe him or not as they wish. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.1.14  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    4 years ago

The question you still have failed to answer is - DO YOU SUPPORT SCHUMER'S STATEMENTS??????  YES or NO?????

I don't care what his "orifice" says.  As you can see, they don't have the foggiest idea of how to cover his comment so they are just "grabbing", from their nether regions", anything that sounds . . . . .

I want to know - do YOU support Schumer's statements?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    4 years ago
I did answer the question. Schumer's office says he was misunderstood. 
People can believe him or not as they wish. 

Wasn't the question whether you supported Schumer's statement?

Not one thing to do with any "explanations" by Team Schumer. We understood his English quite well. we know what he said and who he directed his statement to.

People believing any further 'explanation" by him are simply gullible fools.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    4 years ago

No, you fell back to what his office said, not what Schumer himself said. Big difference JR! The question was did you support Schumer's actual statement coming out of his mouth, not what his office said they think he said. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.17    4 years ago

Too true!!

LOL!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.19  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 years ago

Trump and his idiocy has brought it all on himself. 

Rational folk don't think like this insane asshole.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 years ago
Again, watch the people who freak out  about Trump give this a pass...

It's called TDS and it is a very chronic problem for some on the left.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4  Snuffy    4 years ago

Trump gets on twitter and calls people names.  Schumer gets on stage and threatens SCOTUS.

This is what our politics have devolved into. None of this should be acceptable but due to tribal politics and party politics this is what we have.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  author  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

"More & more we are seeing Democrats try to blackmail SCOTUS into embracing their extreme positions. This latest example by the Democratic Leader was an unambiguous threat & the Senate should censure him for it"...Sen Ted Cruz

Let's go Ted - write it up!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    4 years ago

Protecting abortion rights is not an "extremist" position. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    4 years ago

Threatening Supreme Court Justices is!  It's hard to avoid it, isn't it?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    4 years ago

Keep on deflecting John.  When are you going to answer the questions of #2.1 - #2.1.2. - #3.1.1???  Or is this going to be your usual - hit and run?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.2    4 years ago

I dont have to explain Schumer's statements, he does, and evidently he has. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 years ago

Let me help:

"I'm not sure where to start. There is nothing to call this except a threat, and there is absolutely no question to whom, to whom it was directed. ...The minority leader of the United States threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court by name, period. There's no other way to interpret that," McConnell said from the Senate floor.

mcconnellmitch_022520gn2_lead.jpg?itok=4

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 years ago

You don't need to explain his statements.  You need to answer the questions asked of you - Do YOU support his remarks???  Yes or no?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 years ago
I dont have to explain Schumer's statements, he does, and evidently he has. 

Only gullible idiots accept any "explanation" from Team Schumer.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.5    4 years ago

He cannot do it because to answer that he does not support the comment puts him outside the "I hate Trump/conservatives" box that he has put himself into. He would then have to justify himself, thus it is much easier to just deflect.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    4 years ago

[deleted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.7    4 years ago

Ed, anytime you want to debate issues or whether Trump is fit to serve in the presidency, let me know. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    4 years ago

There you go deflecting again John. The subject is about Schumer, not Trump. At least try to stay on topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.10    4 years ago
There you go deflecting again John. The subject is about Schumer, not Trump. At least try to stay on topic.

I truly believe that is impossible.

Is there any subject under the sun that Trump Haters can't make into an anti-Trump tirade?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    4 years ago

But Schumer gets a free pass from you any time right?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.13  MonsterMash  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.2    4 years ago
Keep on deflecting John.  When are you going to answer the questions of #2 .1 - #2 .1.2. - #3 .1.1???  Or is this going to be your usual - hit and run?

Now, look at what you've done to John.

?u=https%3A%2F%2Factiverain.com%2Fimage_store%2Fuploads%2F6%2F4%2F8%2F5%2F2%2Far131070344825846.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.5    4 years ago

LOL.  Give it up.  There is no way he will answer the question, because he CAN"T make that admission.  The technique being used is "Twist, then run and hide".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.14    4 years ago

[removed]

You are a Trump supporter as well. You have had chance after chance to walk that shit back, and you never have.  Your opinion about right and wrong has no more worth than the other Trumpsters does. 

I answered the question. Schumer elaborated on his statement from yesterday. If you dont like it take it up with him.  Since he has re-explained what he meant it is not for me to say whether his original statement was right or wrong, because he says it is not what he meant. 

How many times has Trump "apologized"? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    4 years ago
I answered the question.

No, you did not. You took it on a date and danced all around it, but you never answered what was asked--DO YOU SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT?

doesn't have one thing to do with Schumer walking it back and pretending he meant something else.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    4 years ago

TWIST, RUN AND HIDE,  TWIST, RUN AND HIDE.  Unless we are in lockstep with your hatred of Trump you call us Trumpsters, and everyone on this site knows what you are doing..  Your comments are oozing with obsessive mental illness.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.17    4 years ago

Buzz, one thing I dont do is run and hide.   I answered the so called "question". 

What you want me to do is answer the question as framed by a bunch of Trumpsters. 

"Isn't it true that Schumer physically threatened two SC justices? 

Since that is not apparent in the words, it is up to Schumer to say what he meant. He re-explained what he meant. If you dont want to accept that, fine. Dont tell other people what to do. 

As far as your overwrought attack on me goes, there are tens of millions of Americans, or more, who think of Trump the same way I do. The difference is I post on a forum like this and many of them do not.  And of course there are others on this forum who basically have the same viewpoint about him that I do. 

The man is completely unfit for office.  If he was an honorable person he would resign today. Since he has no honor whatsoever we have to kick him out. 

People who support Trump should be ashamed of themselves. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.18    4 years ago
it is up to Schumer to say what he meant. He re-explained what he meant.

Hey Captain Double Standard. Does that apply when Mr. Trump does it or, is it another one way street?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.18    4 years ago

Okay, John.   I'm short of time this morning and don't have time to dig back for your answer.   So since you answered the question already, this should be easy for you.   It's a simple yes or no answer.   Won't take you five seconds and you never run from answering questions so this should be right in your wheelhouse.

DO YOU SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT?

Thanks buddy, i know you'll answer this one directly since we are NT pals and all.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.2  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    4 years ago

Schumer is speaking on the floor right now, and telling his "Cast of nutty Characters", how the Republican's are the ones "Using the Courts" to make law. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Too Funny ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @5.2    4 years ago

He is concerned....maybe because the case of June Medical Services v. Russo cannot take down Roe, but it could nullify it!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.1    4 years ago
June Medical Services v. Russo

It's one thing to be "concerned" jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg , it's another to "Threaten" Justices, then do a "Non-Apology" speech on the floor, by blaming Republicans for what he said. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  It Is ME @5.2.2    4 years ago

Schumer has never - NEVER - taken responsibility for anything that comes out of his mouth, even when it's a flat-out, bald-faced lie.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @5.2.2    4 years ago

Yup, and it's clear to everyone including leftist law professor Lawrence Tribe who just came in with:

"These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable. Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office."

https://www. washingtonpost.com/politics/schum er-vows-kavanaugh-gorsuch-will-pay-the-price-for-vote-on-abortion-rights-case/2020/03/04/ce4ae2b4-5e5a-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.3    4 years ago
Schumer has never - NEVER - taken responsibility for anything that comes out of his mouth

For sure !

He is good at taking responsibility for the new trade deals Trump put in place (They made it better jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif ) and the bigger bucks for Virus scanning though (Instead of just saying they would give Trump more than he requested).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6  Nerm_L    4 years ago

The only reason we are hearing about this episode is because John Roberts scolded Chuck Schumer.  Schumer's seditious language has become the new normal in modern politics and is no longer newsworthy by itself.  Unfortunately, Schumer will claim a victory because he got a rise out of John Roberts.

The distinction between Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump is only a shade of grey.  While Trump has been accused of normalizing these types of behaviors, the reality is that politicians have used the political tactic of seditious language for quite a few decades.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
7  Jasper2529    4 years ago

Schumer tripled down on the violence Maxine Waters encourages.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @7    4 years ago

Now you are suggesting that Schumer is advocating violence against Supreme Court justices?  That is ludicrous. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago

Just read Schumer's comments for what they actually say, not what you wish they did.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
7.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif - are you being serious John?????

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
7.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said to a crowd of abortion-rights advocates. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Where John - just WHERE in Schumer's statement is he referring to defeating conservative senators??  Where are their names?  What states are they from?  What committee's are they on?

As a very good friend from Missouri would say - SHOW ME!!!!!  How are those statements NOT advocating violence?????

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago
Now you are suggesting that Schumer is advocating violence against Supreme Court justices?  That is ludicrous. 

Did you read his statement? Is English your first language?

LMMFAO

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
7.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago
Now you are suggesting that Schumer is advocating violence against Supreme Court justices?  That is ludicrous. 

I'm not "suggesting" anything, John.

Schumer's statements are direct threats to the safety of two Supreme Court justices.

What I do suggest is that you stop trying to defend Schumer.

PERIOD.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1.5    4 years ago
Schumer's statements are direct threats to the safety of two Supreme Court justices

Nonsense. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    4 years ago

Fact.

Even if everyone doesn't like it, and some pretend he didn't say what he said.

Of course, gullible idiots would be willing to buy his swill of an "explanation".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    4 years ago

2-d7NROF?format=jpg&name=small


"I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of the SCOTUS" .. ...Senator Josh Hawley

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.7    4 years ago

Proof positive that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
7.1.10  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 years ago

Don't bother with this, John,  let them continue the circle jerk.  Clearly they don't care about the judges and victims Trump's rhetoric endangered.  These conversations don't deserve the oxygen.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @7.1.10    4 years ago

And yet here you are...........................jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
7.1.12  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    4 years ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @7.1.10    4 years ago

All of these people trying to badger me support Trump. Thus their opinions about right and wrong are meaningless. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @7.1.10    4 years ago
Clearly they don't care about the judges and victims Trump's rhetoric endangered.  These conversations don't deserve the oxygen.

And yet, here you both are.

Isn't there 2 or 3 "I Hate Trump" articles that you can vent on?

THIS article is about what Chucky Schumer said.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.13    4 years ago

Nary a soul would "badger' you had you simply answered one very simple question:

Do you support Schumer's comments regarding the two SCOTUS members?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

"The fear is not that the justices will yield to such threats. The Framers anticipated politicians like Schumer who would try to intimidate or harass members of the Court. Life tenure is the protection crafted to insulate members of the judiciary. No, the danger is how Schumer’s words further degrade the view of the rule of law and the court system as a whole.

Schumer needs to apologize without delay or reservation.".....Jonathan Turley

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
10  Transyferous Rex    4 years ago
...you won't know what hit you...

Maybe another impeachment fiasco? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  Transyferous Rex @10    4 years ago
Maybe another impeachment fiasco? 

I wouldn't put anything past the idiot Democrats in the House.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    4 years ago

How about the whopper Schumer just told?

“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 and Leader McConnell knows that."....Chuck Schumer moments ago.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    4 years ago
How about the whopper Schumer just told? “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 and Leader McConnell knows that."....Chuck Schumer moments ago.

In the words of Judge Milian:

"I wouldn't trust him if his tongue came notarized."

Anyone who saw or heard what Schumer said knows he is lying through his teeth when he started "explaining".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    4 years ago
I wouldn't put anything past the idiot Democrats in the House.

You mean between enacting bogus impeachment, lying about what Trump has accomplished, threatening Supreme Court Justices and hoping for economic and/or health problems - there isn't much you would past them?  I think just about any objective observer would have to agree!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    4 years ago

They have proven themselves adept at lies and underhanded tricks.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.2    4 years ago

A real acceptance of how far he went is beyond his character limitations. He is what he is and he represents the worst of our society.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.1.6  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.5    4 years ago
He is what he is and he represents the worst of our society.

Here's one example of what he represents ...

Schumer.jpg?w=1280&h=720&crop=1

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.1.6    4 years ago

It's what separates the two political parties. Republicans believe in freedom, enterprise and Conservative values, while democrats function to achieve power & influence for special interest groups like the abortion activists.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.2    4 years ago

You notice Schumer never apologized either. Just stated he should not have said it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.8    4 years ago
You notice Schumer never apologized either. Just stated he should not have said it.

Of course he wouldn't take responsibility for what he said.

Typical Schumer nonsense.

I am a little surprised he didn't start blubbering.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
10.1.10  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    4 years ago

I'm being serious. I'll give Chuck the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is not talking about payback taking the form of physical assault. What else could the dems do to a justice? Impeach. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
10.1.11  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    4 years ago

Scary really. The left has done a fantastic job, over the past few decades, of ravel rousing, and the party leaders have no qualms with feeding it. The fact that Schumer can make a plain and unambiguous threat, and blankly claim it was not a threat, tells us all we need to know. How dare anyone accuse him of saying hat he said, and meaning it to boot.  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1.12  katrix  replied to  Transyferous Rex @10.1.11    4 years ago
Scary really

Trump has done more rabble rousing than anyone - and his supporters constantly defend it.

Partisan bullshit.

What Chuck said was completely out of line - but the same people who are slamming him for it have no problems with all the crap Trump has said and the violence he has incited. Apparently they don't actually give a shit about common decency and violence, they just like to get outraged at liberals while giving the right a free pass.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
10.1.13  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @10.1.12    4 years ago

Kat - stick to the subject - and Trump ain't it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  katrix @10.1.12    4 years ago

As stated before, this is about Schumer's boneheaded comments and not about Trump. Trying to throw Trump into the mix should be considered off topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.14    4 years ago

I don't see where it is possible for the Trump Haters to ever stick to a topic--they make everything about Trump--even when it isn't.

SOSDD

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Transyferous Rex @10.1.10    4 years ago

I won't give him the benefit of the doubt because he never apologized and tried to spin some "new" meaning into his words.

We all saw or heard them.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1.17  katrix  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.14    4 years ago

I can see why having people's hypocrisy pointed out would upset them.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
10.1.18  Transyferous Rex  replied to  katrix @10.1.12    4 years ago

I would agree that some of the stuff Trump has said, or tweeted, has made me wince. But, the issue is Schumer's clear threat, followed by his clearly chicken shit excuse. 

I just noticed the misspelling of mine...rabble. jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

My comment was in response to Chuck's BS

“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 and Leader McConnell knows that.

Bullshit Chuck. You specifically made a threat. That's what is scary. He might as well be saying "l shouldn't have made the molotov cocktail, or lit it, or thrown it though the window, but in no way was I attempting to burn the place down. I would never do such a thing and everyone knows that."  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  katrix @10.1.17    4 years ago

Deflection, and still off topic.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1.20  katrix  replied to  Transyferous Rex @10.1.18    4 years ago
I just noticed the misspelling of mine...rabble

No worries.

And yes, Chuck's excuse is total BS. There is no excuse for what he said.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.1.21  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @10.1.17    4 years ago

The only hypocrisy is that which is coming from those who are deflecting and/or making excuses for Schumer's despicable threats.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Transyferous Rex @10.1.11    4 years ago

As I said above, I'm hoping for censure.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.22    4 years ago

Yeah, that and a couple bucks will get you an overpriced cup of frou-frou coffee

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
10.1.24  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.22    4 years ago
I'm hoping for censure.

It would be well-deserved.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.22    4 years ago

Same here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12  Perrie Halpern R.A.    4 years ago

You want to condemn Chuck for his poor choice of words (and I agree that they were a poor choice), but how about what spurns this on. Even in this article, there is a poor choice of words:

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer took to the stage to address a mob of angitated pro-abortion activists

People who support Roe v Wade, are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. There is a huge difference. That is a poor choice of words, too. Maybe if the hyperbole stopped we would all be much better off. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
12.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12    4 years ago

I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone can defend a person for threatening a judge, or even attempting to reinterpret such a clear meaning of the words used.  

What a coincidence it is that I am presently rereading John Grisham's novel The Pellican Brief wherein 2 SCOTUS judges are assassinated.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1    4 years ago
What a coincidence it is that I am presently rereading John Grisham's novel The Pellican Brief wherein 2 SCOTUS judges are assassinated.

Well, I don't think he was saying that, but I do feel that what he said was unbefitting a senator and Justice Roberts was right in the rebuke. 

That being said, I who am pro-choice am really sick and tired of being called pro-abortion. Even my twin daughters would tell you, that when we discussed this topic, I always told them that they had choices. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
12.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 years ago

I agree.  No one is pro-abortion.  The fight is entirely about choice.  Pro-abortion is a term that needs to go away.  NT might be a good place to start. 

As for Chuck Schumer, his words were not meant to be anything other than pissed pappy trash talk.  To interpret his words as anything else is ridiculous.  However, I do think that his use of individual names was inappropriate.  That is a Trump tactic and Chuck Schumer should know better and hold himself to a higher standard.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
12.1.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to    4 years ago
This has been Chuck you Schumer MO for years this is his standard.

Huh?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
12.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 years ago

So lets compare and contrast Perrie.   I know i can get an honest answer from you on this question.   Others here ..... not so much.  

If this had been say, Mitch McConnell attacking Justices RBG and Sotomayor like Schumer did, do you think the response would have been better or worse?  I say it would have been much worse.    The left would be asking for MM's head on a pike right now if that had happened.   Probably much more aggressively than what the right is doing right now towards Schumer.

The hypocrisy at play in DC is absolutely out of control and needs to be reigned in.   This isn't Schumers or McConnells fault.   Its the fault of the people who keep electing partisan hacks like that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
12.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @12.1.4    4 years ago

Turn up your hearing aid ...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
12.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @12.1.6    4 years ago
Turn up your hearing aid ...

Although I appreciate the advice, my hearing aid did not come equipped with a crappy grammar translator.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12    4 years ago
People who support Roe v Wade, are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.

I reserve my right under the Constitution to choose my own words. To me it's pro-abortion despite what progressives want to call it.

As for the mob and Schumer, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
12.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.2    4 years ago

Wrong, pro choice - leaving the choice to the woman on what she does with an unplanned pregnancy regardless of her choice.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
12.2.3  lady in black  replied to    4 years ago

His words are incorrect, he may believe them but that is not what pro choicers are, he's just using a sweeping generalization of pro choice people.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
12.2.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.2    4 years ago
I reserve my right under the Constitution to choose my own words. To me it's pro-abortion despite what progressives want to call it.

You know what?  You are completely right.  Thank you for re-enforcing my right to choose my own words, as well.  [[deleted]]

Wait for it...  Wait for it...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
12.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @12.2.4    4 years ago

Are you inferring Vic needs a Manzier? 

I hope not because that would be body shaming and therefore a COC violation.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
12.2.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.5    4 years ago
Are you inferring Vic needs a Manzier?

There's an image that will be stuck in my head for...ever.  

Titty baby :

Someone who whines and complains about stuff. Often sounding like a child.

On an unrelated side note, while researching the exact meaning of 'titty baby', I found out that I am suffering a 'titastrophy'.  Meaning: a catastrophe that happens to ass and breasts as it becomes saggy. so unpleasant to look at. a real turn off. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
12.2.8  1stwarrior  replied to    4 years ago

C'mon Wally - are you serious???

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
12.2.9  lady in black  replied to    4 years ago

Birth and keep

Birth and give up for adoption

Abortion

Those are the 3 choices women have...it's up to the individual woman to decide which choice is best for her.  

Whatever she chooses pro choice people have no problem with

Whereas anti choicers demand the right to TELL women what they should do with an unplanned pregnancy.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13  bugsy    4 years ago

So Chucky uses the excuse that he is a New Yorker and that should be enough of an excuse to say what he said.....and liberals will fall over themselves to accept it, but Trump, also a New Yorker, who has never said or tweeted any threats, gets liberal hatred for weeks for almost everything he tweets.

Liberal hypocrisy is simply insane in the eyes of the sane.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
14  Tacos!    4 years ago

I don't think for a moment that Chuck intended to threaten anybody. I think he got caught up in the moment. Still, his words were inappropriate and could be interpreted as a threat. He should apologize to the justices and the court. He should also condemn the idea of threatening a justice.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
14.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @14    4 years ago

Agreed. He should have had the sense to realize who he was speaking to and gauge his words with caution and carefully.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
15  The Magic 8 Ball    4 years ago
dangerous thing for Schumer to do, but he is, after all, pandering to a very vile segment of society.

without a doubt.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
16  author  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

"Every time Democrats try to threaten sitting justices, we are reminded exactly why the Framers gave them life tenure and salary protection. Republicans are absolutely and unshakably committed to the core constitutional principle of an independent federal judiciary."

635573507470999197-mitch-mcconnell-senate-floor-01202015.JPG

 
 

Who is online

Drakkonis


97 visitors