Senator UpChuck Schumer from the Peoples’ Republic of New York.
They should sell hats with “PRNY” on them!
Yeah! This sales could help support all of the criminals released back into the community without bail…, not to mention their future innocent victims.
Anyway…, I digress.
Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer shot his mouth off the other day, while speaking out in front of the Supreme Court building.
So what is all of the fuss about?
Mr.EricksonRules is going to pull all of the pertinent information together for you and give you the proper perception of Senator Schumer’s words, as well as of the responses of others.
It all started with what democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said while speaking at an abortion rights rally outside of the Supreme Court on March 4, 2020.
Here are the exact words Schumer said:
“Now we stand here today because behind me, inside the walls of this Court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench.”
“From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging war on women, all women. And they’re taking away fundamental rights. 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.”
Well, that definitely sounds like a threat to me.
Since Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh are appointed for life and don’t have to be re-elected, how exactly will they “pay the price,” Mr. Schumer?
And what do you think they are going to be “hit” with?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Schumer’s remarks were, “astonishing, reckless and completely irresponsible.”
President Trump tweeted, “There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 5, 2020”
According to Ian Millhiser for the VOX website, Schumer’s words, “received a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.”
“Roberts, for his part, interpreted this statement as a direct threat against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and it’s easy to see why. ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory,’ the chief justice said in his statement rebuking Schumer. ‘But threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.’”
I think everyone should complete agree with Chief Justice Roberts words.
And excuse Mr. Millhiser, why would the Chief Justice interpret Schumer’s words any other way but as a “direct threat against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh?”
Senator Schumer specifically called them out.
Any other interpretation is completely disingenuous and propagandistic spin.
The next day, after being reprimanded in The Senate by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said, “I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended to.”
Hmmm…, that’s funny, because you’ve been at this talking thing for quite a few years now…, in fact, it’s your job! I’m pretty sure you said exactly what you intended to say.
“He says that his intention was to convey that ‘there would be political consequences—political consequences, for President Trump and Senate Republicans—if the Supreme Court, with newly confirmed Justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose.’”
Hmmm…, again that’s funny, because you didn’t say anything about “political consequences,” President Trump or Senate republicans, Mr. Schumer.
Are we to believe that you were that confused and unable to say what you really meant for some unknown reason?
Ian Millhiser also attempts to reason that, “There also isn’t any law prohibiting United States senators from making vaguely menacing statements about Supreme Court justices.”
Oh, but I think there is, Mr. Ian Millhiser…, and I wouldn’t necessarily classify his statements as “vague” either.
Why do I feel that if President Trump would have said these things you wouldn’t have classified his remarks as “vague?”
Anyway…, back to the law I think was violated here.
“Threatening government officials of the United States IS a felony under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes. When a threat is made against a judge, it can also be considered obstruction of justice.”
Schumer continued with his “apology” in The Senate by saying, “Of course, I did not intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”
“I’m from Brooklyn,” Schumer then explained. “We speak in strong language. 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. And Republicans, manufacturing outrage over these comments know that too.”
Chucky, Chucky…, where should I begin?
First of all, you “of course” are not given credit for anything.
Second of all, you yourself are the one attempting the “gross distortion here,” not anyone else.
Next you somehow are attempting to blame what you said and how you speak on being from Brooklyn?
Then you say people from Brooklyn speak in “strong language?”
People from Brooklyn speak in “strong language” compared to who?
In your estimation, Mr. Schumer, are there any people who talk in stronger language who would be excused from saying ever dumber things than you?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I believe, for now, that covers UpChuck Schumer’s threatening Supreme Court comments.
Lastly I’d like to talk about various politicians and various media outlets attempting to justify Schumer’s comments based on comments President Trump has made about The Supreme Court.
OK…, so what has President Trump said?
Amanda Holpuch of The Guardian reports that, “While ‘elections have consequences’ – a reference to his [President Trump’s] two Supreme Court appointments since winning the White House, both reliable conservatives – ‘I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!’”
“At a press conference in India, [President Trump] Trump repeated his complaint.”
‘“I just don’t know how they [Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor] cannot recuse themselves from anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related,’ he said. ‘The right thing to do is that.’”
‘“What Justice Sotomayor said … was really highly inappropriate and everybody agrees to that. Virtually everybody. I’ve seen papers on it, people cannot believe that she said it.’”
President Trump expressing his opinion and concern about certain Justices, based on prior inflammatory remarks, and their ability to judge fairly and without bias, is completely different from Senator Schumer’s threatening remarks.
These politicians and media outlets attempting to equate President Trump’s remarks to Senator Schumer’s remarks, somehow, are acting completely irresponsible and fraudulent.
I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.
Thank you, MrEricksonRules.