Did Schumer threaten Judges? (1 Viewer)

[TheMagus]

I'm not sure what is so hard about this. There is no "but Trump" in this discussion. If the Democratic party wants to be the adults in the room and have a leg to stand on pointing out what is so unacceptable about Trumpian discourse, they cannot sink to his level. If we truly believe that Trump's rhetoric is dangerous then that means similar rhetoric from our side is equally as dangerous and cannot occur.

I don't think that Schumer was physically threatening the USSC justices, but when you say directly to the judges that they will "pay the price" there is really no positive spin you can apply to that. If not physical intimidation, the only other option to go after them would be impeachment which just feeds into the right wing narrative that the Democrats just impeach people they don't like. It's awful. I've had a lot of problems with Schumer recently and this sort of takes the cake for me and I think we need a new leader in the Senate. It's not like he's getting #### done and had a momentary lapse of reason. 

 

[[scooter]]

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?

I edited it to "attacks" shortly after I made the post, as I thought that was a better description of Trump's reprehensible behavior, and it reflected the fact that I hold Trump to the same standard that I hold Chuck Schumer.

That said, here is one example where Trump's attacks went much closer into threat territory than Schumer ever did ("If something happens, blame him"). Another example is when Trump called for a bogus investigation into the judge who was presiding over his Trump University case. Nuisance lawsuits are forms of threats.

As with Schumer, these examples wouldn't meet the statutory definition of a criminal threat. But are definitely examples of disgraceful behavior that have been implicitly sanctioned by the Republican party. Which is why the latest faux outrage is falling on deaf ears.

 

[Summer Wheat]

He hasn't.

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

Well then maybe Trump exposed them for what they really are. 

 

[jon_mx]

I'm not sure what is so hard about this. There is no "but Trump" in this discussion. If the Democratic party wants to be the adults in the room and have a leg to stand on pointing out what is so unacceptable about Trumpian discourse, they cannot sink to his level. If we truly believe that Trump's rhetoric is dangerous then that means similar rhetoric from our side is equally as dangerous and cannot occur.

I don't think that Schumer was physically threatening the USSC justices, but when you say directly to the judges that they will "pay the price" there is really no positive spin you can apply to that. If not physical intimidation, the only other option to go after them would be impeachment which just feeds into the right wing narrative that the Democrats just impeach people they don't like. It's awful. I've had a lot of problems with Schumer recently and this sort of takes the cake for me and I think we need a new leader in the Senate. It's not like he's getting #### done and had a momentary lapse of reason. 

Schumer's audience was a bunch of passionate abortion-rights protesters, so IMHO it does raise up to condoning actual physical violence to those two judges.  The fact that Schumer's spokesperson issued the following statement: 

“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”

negates any regret that Schumer expressed for the statement. The is no 'misinterpretation'.  Here is 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.”

Absolutely directed at those two individuals.  His words do not support the backpeddling that he was talking about political ramifications to Republicans.  Schumer is lying and needs to be censured.  Yesterday an apology and retraction would have been fine.  But his lying and spinning is making it worse.  No one doubts that the President crosses the line with some of his criticism of judges and is widely rebuked,  but don't equate that with threats of violence.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

Shumer drops R-bomb.   Yikes!

Responding to a question during a virtual podcast with OneNYCHA on what Congress is doing to combat homelessness exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, the New York Democrat was discussing funding to provide affordable housing and the need for mental health assistance when he used the term.

"When I was an assemblyman, they wanted to build a congregate living place for the ###### children," he said Sunday when a host described resistance to efforts to build housing for the homeless. "The whole neighborhood was against it. These are harmless kids, they just needed some help. We got it done, took a while."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Building congregate living for mentally disabled people: actually helps the affected community.

PC policing of the "r-word": helps nobody, harms the affected community by derailing the conversation.

 

[BladeRunner]

Building congregate living for mentally disabled people: actually helps the affected community.

PC policing of the "r-word": helps nobody, harms the affected community by derailing the conversation.

We're just holding them to the standards THEY created and fostered.  I mean, if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk, no?

 

[ekbeats]

Building congregate living for mentally disabled people: actually helps the affected community.

PC policing of the "r-word": helps nobody, harms the affected community by derailing the conversation.

Strange hill to die on - being an apologist for someone using the r-word.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Building congregate living for mentally disabled people: actually helps the affected community.

PC policing of the "r-word": helps nobody, harms the affected community by derailing the conversation.

I agree 100% and despise the PC police in general.   

But we play by different rules depending on who says what?  When Shumer, Pelosi, Cortez, Harris or Biden have a slips of the tongue and they have many it is "Oh..they just mispoke and did not mean it"

If it were Trump, or Ted Cruz  and other they would be nailed to a cross for being insensitive. And I don`t like either of them.

 

[BladeRunner]

I agree 100% and despise the PC police in general.   

But we play by different rules depending on who says what?  When Shumer, Pelosi, Cortez, Harris or Biden have a slips of the tongue and they have many it is "Oh..they just mispoke and did not mean it"

If it were Trump, or Ted Cruz  and other they would be nailed to a cross for being insensitive. And I don`t like either of them.

Yep, until the left plays fair then there will always be this disparity.  The right can't keep doing the right thing while the left gets away with murder.  At some point, there will be a breaking point.

 

[The Commish]

I agree 100% and despise the PC police in general.   

But we play by different rules depending on who says what?  When Shumer, Pelosi, Cortez, Harris or Biden have a slips of the tongue and they have many it is "Oh..they just mispoke and did not mean it"

If it were Trump, or Ted Cruz  and other they would be nailed to a cross for being insensitive. And I don`t like either of them.

meh...the rules aren't any different.....both these arguments are made in both cases.  The only thing that changes is who's making which argument.  Two sides of the same coin....not nearly as different as they want to believe.