Did Schumer threaten Judges? (1 Viewer)

[Da Guru]

Not a Jeffery Toobin fan and he was expressing his opinion (just like yours) and not speaking for the CNN Network. 

We have many Trump bashing threads, this is the Shumer thread.    Lets concentrate on Chuck here.  Do you or don`t you condemn his threatening of the SCOTUS judges.  It is an easy yes or no?

 

[jon_mx]

Do I have to pick a side here, or can I just say both R's and D's are acting like jerks and saying stupid things?  I also don't care about the "who started" or "who said more" of it.  I get enough of that from my children.  

You don't have to pick sides or read this thread.  The point of this thread is if in this specific case the behavior should be condemned.  If you don't think a Senator making a threat against two judges is worthy of discussion, the don't comment.  But this topic is a legitimate thread about an ethical issue which there should be some standard politicians adhere to.  Certainly there are a few trying to muck it up and derail it.

 

[squistion]

We have many Trump bashing threads, this is the Shumer thread.    Lets concentrate on Chuck here.  Do you or don`t you condemn his threatening of the SCOTUS judges.  It is an easy yes or no?

I already mentioned that in other posts, however I agree with Maurile who said (from above)

It was not a threat.

It was dumb and offensive and disappointing and bad.

He was paraphrasing Kavanaugh (who was paraphrasing Hosea 8:7).

That doesn’t make it okay

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don’t know how you can discuss Schumer’s comments honestly without addressing the fact that it seems to be generating a lot of selective outrage. Which means Trump is probably going to come up. 
 

Schumer said something stupid. He apologized for it, as he should have. 

 

[Da Guru]

I already mentioned that in other posts, however I agree with Maurile who said (from above)

So it is yes.

 

[squistion]

You don't have to pick sides or read this thread.  The point of this thread is if in this specific case the behavior should be condemned.  If you don't think a Senator making a threat against two judges is worthy of discussion, the don't comment.  But this topic is a legitimate thread about an ethical issue which there should be some standard politicians adhere to.  Certainly there are a few trying to muck it up and derail it.

Or just asking for consistency.by bringing up analogous situations with Trumps attacks on judges and the judiciary going back to Judge Curiel who Trump claimed couldn't be impartial because he was a "Mexican" 

 

[tonydead]

No more than you apparently.  

This is demonstrably false:

I think what he said was horrible, it goes without saying.  Your turn.

Yes, he shouldn't have said it.

However, if he apologizes then so should Trump for demanding that Sotomayor and Ginsburg recuse themselves from 'Trump-related' cases that are before the court in which he has a lot at stake. 

 

[jm192]

I don’t know how you can discuss Schumer’s comments honestly without addressing the fact that it seems to be generating a lot of selective outrage. Which means Trump is probably going to come up. 
 

Schumer said something stupid. He apologized for it, as he should have. 

Again, John Roberts was painted as the great saint of Justice during impeachment.  He took it as a threat.  He keeps his nose out of most things and felt the need to speak up against it.  

During impeachment, it was offered that he should decided on relevancy of witnesses.  If Trump tried to cite executive privilege--we already have the best judge in the land.  No need to drag it through courts.  Roberts is the greatest, most fair, level headed, reasonable judge in all the land.

THAT guy felt this was very bad.  

CNN talking heads called it bad.  

I don't see it as selective. 

Furthermore, the frequent outrage on this board is Trump's behavior.  People are upset that he's lowering the standard of what is acceptable for our elected officials.  

But here, people come to use that poor behavior by the President as Schumer's actions aren't that bad.  Which in turn lowers the behavior.  

Either you care about a standard or you don't.  If you do, Schumer's actions were bad and we can focus on that.  If you simply hate Trump, then let's go out of our way to make Schumer's behavior less atrocious. 

 

[jm192]

Or just asking for consistency.by bringing up analogous situations with Trumps attacks on judges and the judiciary going back to Judge Curiel who Trump claimed couldn't be impartial because he was a "Mexican" 

Again, either you care about a standard of behavior, or you don't.  

If you do--you can call Schumer's behavior bad.

If you just hate Trump, we can make everytime any Democrat does anything bad a "but Trump did this thread."  Which is exactly what you're doing.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Which means Trump is probably going to come up.  

"Probably"

 

[squistion]

Again, either you care about a standard of behavior, or you don't.  

If you do--you can call Schumer's behavior bad.

If you just hate Trump, we can make everytime any Democrat does anything bad a "but Trump did this thread."  Which is exactly what you're doing.

I care about consistency and attacking Schumer while ignoring Trumps attacks on judges and the judiciary going back to Judge Curiel is disingenuous and laughable.

 

[jm192]

I care about consistency and attacking Schumer while ignoring Trumps attacks on judges and the judiciary going back to Judge Curiel is disingenuous and laughable.

And you've constantly criticized everything Trump has done without analyzing anything a Democrat has done.

But you don't do the same for Democrats.

But please, keep lecturing us about consistency.  

 

[Mookie]

The point is that the entire discourse has been lowered by this President, WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.  Why do others have to play by different rules?  I agree with Roberts that an independent judiciary is critical to a proper functioning government, but we don't have that.  The SCOTUS has been politicized by this President and Senate, resulting in two Justices who, for different reasons, should not be on the Court.  I'm fine with what Schumer said because it fairly reflects the muddy swamp in Washington right now.  

 

[jm192]

The point is that the entire discourse has been lowered by this President, WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.  Why do others have to play by different rules?  I agree with Roberts that an independent judiciary is critical to a proper functioning government, but we don't have that.  The SCOTUS has been politicized by this President and Senate, resulting in two Justices who, for different reasons, should not be on the Court.  I'm fine with what Schumer said because it fairly reflects the muddy swamp in Washington right now.  

So it's ok to criticize the President for "lowering the standard."  And then it's also ok for Democrats to lower the standard.  

You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical.

If the low standard is acceptable, we can all stop criticizing everything Trump does.  If it's not...maybe what Schumer did was bad.?  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Again, John Roberts was painted as the great saint of Justice during impeachment.  He took it as a threat.  He keeps his nose out of most things and felt the need to speak up against it.  

During impeachment, it was offered that he should decided on relevancy of witnesses.  If Trump tried to cite executive privilege--we already have the best judge in the land.  No need to drag it through courts.  Roberts is the greatest, most fair, level headed, reasonable judge in all the land.

THAT guy felt this was very bad.  

CNN talking heads called it bad.  

I don't see it as selective. 

Furthermore, the frequent outrage on this board is Trump's behavior.  People are upset that he's lowering the standard of what is acceptable for our elected officials.  

But here, people come to use that poor behavior by the President as Schumer's actions aren't that bad.  Which in turn lowers the behavior.  

Either you care about a standard or you don't.  If you do, Schumer's actions were bad and we can focus on that.  If you simply hate Trump, then let's go out of our way to make Schumer's behavior less atrocious. 

John Roberts also spoke up when Trump criticized “Obama” judges.  I have no problem with Roberts’ statement.  I’m sure he would accept Schumer’s apology.  As, I’m sure, would Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. 
 

As for being held out as a man of virtue during the impeachment hearings, I think you’re memory is a bit selective. People wanted Roberts to rule on those questions because they felt it was his job in the process. And many on the left criticized him for being unwilling to do his job. 

 

[jm192]

John Roberts also spoke up when Trump criticized “Obama” judges.  I have no problem with Roberts’ statement.  I’m sure he would accept Schumer’s apology.  As, I’m sure, would Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. 
 

As for being held out as a man of virtue during the impeachment hearings, I think you’re memory is a bit selective. People wanted Roberts to rule on those questions because they felt it was his job in the process. And many on the left criticized him for being unwilling to do his job. 

I guess.  I recall Adam Schiff praising him and saying let's put it up to him.  

But then I did forget Warren's question.  So maybe you'e right.  

 

[squistion]

And you've constantly criticized everything Trump has done without analyzing anything a Democrat has done.

But you don't do the same for Democrats.

But please, keep lecturing us about consistency.  

I guess you have missed my postings on Bernie going back to 2015 (where I said then and have continued to say that he is unelectable for POTUS as an avowed Socialist). I was critical of some of Hillary's positions and actions in the Official Hillary Thread that was locked by Dobbs. I have criticized both Biden and Hillary's Iraq vote war for expediency instead of doing the right thing. I also spoke out for Obama being against gay marriage for years while I was sure that was not his personal opinion on the matter. There are probably more examples if I give it some thought. 

 

[Mookie]

So it's ok to criticize the President for "lowering the standard."  And then it's also ok for Democrats to lower the standard.  

You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical.

If the low standard is acceptable, we can all stop criticizing everything Trump does.  If it's not...maybe what Schumer did was bad.?  

The lower standard is what it is, and that has become the norm.  The right demanding decency, decorum, and professionalism from the left rings a bit hollow.   People in glass houses and all. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

John Roberts also spoke up when Trump criticized “Obama” judges.  I have no problem with Roberts’ statement.  I’m sure he would accept Schumer’s apology.  As, I’m sure, would Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. 
 

If Schumer really wanted to call out a judge who might make a different in the June Medical case, he should have gone after Roberts. 

Above all, his comment was just really stupid granstanding.

 

[parrot]

Senate Minority leader threatens Supreme Court justices, thread immediately turns to Trump.  SMH.

I have it on good authority that saying someone should pay a price in politics is not a threat.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764393-donald-trump-tweets-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22463262

"Nope, only those that are offended by almost anything see it as a threat. Okie Dokie Pokie"

You liked that post.   "You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical."

 

[squistion]

I have it on good authority that saying someone should pay a price in politics is not a threat.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764393-donald-trump-tweets-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22463262

"Nope, only those that are offended by almost anything see it as a threat. Okie Dokie Pokie"

You liked that post.   "You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical."

Indeed. 

 

[Da Guru]

This is quickly turning into a classic  "PSF" thread. 

 

[The Commish]

So it's ok to criticize the President for "lowering the standard."  And then it's also ok for Democrats to lower the standard.  

You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical.

If the low standard is acceptable, we can all stop criticizing everything Trump does.  If it's not...maybe what Schumer did was bad.?  

I think the far more accurate take (sans squis and his nonsense) is that people are holding the President responsible for "lowering the standard" and then people pissed about that also saying "WTF do you expect?" to the people complaining about others lowering their standards to match the President with nary a word from them as the President was lowering the standard.  It's easy to be consistent on this stuff, but few are.

 

[jm192]

I have it on good authority that saying someone should pay a price in politics is not a threat.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764393-donald-trump-tweets-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22463262

"Nope, only those that are offended by almost anything see it as a threat. Okie Dokie Pokie"

You liked that post.   "You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical."

I also posted how if Schumer had said the same thing to a an elected official, I would view it differently.  I posted it in this thread.  It can easily be interpreted as "We're gonna go after your seat and get you voted out."

How does one get a Supreme Court Justice out of their position?  

It kind of changes when there is an election for your seat.  

I do appreciate the digging job, though.

 

[squistion]

I also posted how if Schumer had said the same thing to a an elected official, I would view it differently.  I posted it in this thread.  It can easily be interpreted as "We're gonna go after your seat and get you voted out."

How does one get a Supreme Court Justice out of their position?  

It kind of changes when there is an election for your seat.  

I do appreciate the digging job, though.

They can be impeached the same as POTUS.

 

[parrot]

I also posted how if Schumer had said the same thing to a an elected official, I would view it differently.  I posted it in this thread.  It can easily be interpreted as "We're gonna go after your seat and get you voted out."

How does one get a Supreme Court Justice out of their position?  

It kind of changes when there is an election for your seat.  

I do appreciate the digging job, though.

Impeachment? 

But there are also other possible political consequences or 'payments'; like simply changing the political winds so these types of laws aren't made in the first place due to the makeup of congress, or maybe eventually losing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, making their voices less relevant.  There are any number of possible interpretations to what Schumer said other than violence.  To contend that Schumer was automatically making a violent threat when before you endorsed a post that scoffed at almost the same verbiage being interpreted as a threat is at best a little disingenuous.  And your distinction without a difference doesn't explain it away. 

 

[jm192]

They can be impeached the same as POTUS.

Sure.  You got me there.  Do you think Schumer was implying Impeachment?  Cuz, no one else does.

 

[jm192]

Impeachment? 

But there are also other possible political consequences or 'payments'; like simply changing the political winds so these types of laws aren't made in the first place due to the makeup of congress, or maybe eventually losing the conservative majority on the Supreme Courts, making their voices less relevant.  There are any number of possible interpretations to what Schumer said other than violence.  To contend that Schumer was automatically making a violent threat when before you endorsed a post that scoffed at almost the same verbiage being interpreted as a threat is at best a little disingenuous.  And your distinction without a difference doesn't explain it away. 

I literally gave you the difference.  I even posted about the same difference earlier in this very thread.  

But I understand better now.  All Democrats are ok to do whatever because Trump did some bad stuff before.  

Maybe you guys can just spare us the moral high ground BS in the future?  Since the low bar is acceptable for you.

 

[Mile High]

I literally gave you the difference.  I even posted about the same difference earlier in this very thread.  

But I understand better now.  All Democrats are ok to do whatever because Trump did some bad stuff before.  

Maybe you guys can just spare us the moral high ground BS in the future?  Since the low bar is acceptable for you.

I just think we should all be fighting by the same rules. If the bar is laying on ground then so be it.

 

[jm192]

I just think we should all be fighting by the same rules. If the bar is laying on ground then so be it.

Then do you pledge not to criticize Trump from now on?  Since the bar is so low?

And Does @squistion pledge to stop dissecting Trump's tweets?  

Because the new standard is agreed to be so low--that Trump really isn't that bad by the agreed upon standard?

Or are we going to continue to criticize the hell out of him and when a Dem messes up "Bars already low?"

To those of you that have said it was bad on Schumer's part--good on you.  To those of you that are so accepting of the new low bar--please put it into action on all the other threads.

 

[sho nuff]

Here it comes.

No Dem can do bad because Trump bad.

That isn't at all what he said or inferred.

 

[parrot]

I literally gave you the difference.  I even posted about the same difference earlier in this very thread.  

But I understand better now.  All Democrats are ok to do whatever because Trump did some bad stuff before.  

Maybe you guys can just spare us the moral high ground BS in the future?  Since the low bar is acceptable for you.

Except the idea that there are no potential political costs beyond being voted out is false, so the supposed difference isn't what you are making it out to be.    

Also, I'm not a democrat, and I if you'd care to point out where I've claimed any moral high ground, feel free.  I haven't said much about either statement, fyi.   I just thought it was interesting that you were lecturing others about hypocrisy and consistency.  

 

[jm192]

Except the idea that there are no potential political costs beyond being voted out is false, so the supposed difference isn't what you are making it out to be.    

Also, I'm not a democrat, and I if you'd care to point out where I've claimed any moral high ground, feel free.  I haven't said much about either statement, fyi.   I just thought it was interesting that you were lecturing others about hypocrisy and consistency.  

I guess if what you're offering up is that Schumer was threatening or implying impeachment...I don't think anyone else sees it that way.  But to each their own.  

The SCOTUS judges in question clearly did nothing immoral or worthy of investigation or impeachment.  So to consider/discuss it seems ludicrous.  

 

[Mile High]

Then do you pledge not to criticize Trump from now on?  Since the bar is so low?

Nope. I'm not going to jump over a bar while you run underneath it.

 

[parrot]

I guess if what you're offering up is that Schumer was threatening or implying impeachment...I don't think anyone else sees it that way.  But to each their own.  

The SCOTUS judges in question clearly did nothing immoral or worthy of investigation or impeachment.  So to consider/discuss it seems ludicrous.  

No I'm not really offering up that Schumer was talking impeachment. I was answering your question.  

To be clear, I don't think Schumer was talking about impeachment, I think he was more talking about swinging the political pendulum back the other way and how that can affect even a position like the Supreme Court.  Do you really think he was encouraging violence against Supreme Court justices?  

 

[Dickies]

I didn't interpret what he said as a threat, but it was still over the line and unacceptable.  I'm not a fan of making excuses before issuing apologies, but I'm still glad he apologized, weak as it was.  If the Dems decide he should step down as minority leader, I'd be okay with it.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Why is it ok to use Brooklyn as an excuse for the words you use? (yes, although not an apology, he did recant and say he should have used different words) 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Shumer made a bone headed mistake in a fit of rage, he owned it and apologized.   I really feel Trump has made people like Pelosi, Schumer and others act crazy and out of character. Thought out Shumer would never say that again, Pelosi would never rip up a speech. It just happened as a knee jerk reaction.

I am hoping things return to normal if Trump does not win in November.   But right now I am not so sure they ever will.

 

[jm192]

Shumer made a bone headed mistake in a fit of rage, he owned it and apologized.   I really feel Trump has made people like Pelosi, Schumer and others act crazy and out of character. Thought out Shumer would never say that again, Pelosi would never rip up a speech. It just happened as a knee jerk reaction.

I am hoping things return to normal if Trump does not win in November.   But right now I am not so sure they ever will.

But, acting crazy because of Trump is on them.  Someone else isn't ever responsible for your behavior.  If I act like a jerk and get banned, it's not on whoever I yelled at.  

If Trump wins in November, they should be able to conduct themselves appropriately.  

I do applaud Schumer's statement today.

 

[Zow]

But, acting crazy because of Trump is on them.  Someone else isn't ever responsible for your behavior.  If I act like a jerk and get banned, it's not on whoever I yelled at.  

If Trump wins in November, they should be able to conduct themselves appropriately.  

I do applaud Schumer's statement today.

The bold is absolutely correct. Again, Schumer's statement(s) was/were stupid and wrong. 

But, with Trump and his antics, clearly you understand at least why his name is brought up when an incident like this occurs, right? I mean, I'll be honest, watching unapologetic Trump supporters jump all over Schumer here would be like watching diehard Astros fans accuse some other team this year of using corked bats. 

 

[Zow]

I literally gave you the difference.  I even posted about the same difference earlier in this very thread.  

But I understand better now.  All Democrats are ok to do whatever because Trump did some bad stuff before.  

Maybe you guys can just spare us the moral high ground BS in the future?  Since the low bar is acceptable for you.

Not a single person here has said or argued the bold. 

 

[quick-hands]

I don’t know how you can discuss Schumer’s comments honestly without addressing the fact that it seems to be generating a lot of selective outrage. Which means Trump is probably going to come up. 
 

Schumer said something stupid. He apologized for it, as he should have. 

Investgate his bias?  Censure? 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I really feel Trump has made people like Pelosi, Schumer and others act crazy and out of character. 

He hasn't.

Their behavior isn't out of character, it's a reflection of it.

 

[BladeRunner]

The lower standard is what it is, and that has become the norm.  The right demanding decency, decorum, and professionalism from the left rings a bit hollow.   People in glass houses and all. 

Well, the left keeps insisting that they're the adults in the room.

We're only holding them to the standards they insist that they have.

 

[Mr.Pack]

The leader of the Republican party has endorsed and normalized attacks on judges. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it difficult to take the latest Republican outrage seriously.

What threats to what judges?

 

[BladeRunner]

I was looking for actual evidence. 

 

[Mr.Pack]

I was looking for actual evidence. 

That's why I quoted you. Still waiting for a @[scooter] response.

 

[BladeRunner]

That's why I quoted you. Still waiting for a @[scooter] response.

Oh, sorry.  I completely misread that. 

 

[Mr.Pack]

Not a single person here has said or argued the bold. 

Hmmmm

 

[Mr.Pack]

What Schumer said is not okay. Trump’s prior similar comments are not okay. 
 

This shouldn’t be that complicated. 

The thread should have just stopped here.