Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    McConnell Admonishes Schumer’s SCOTUS Threats, Schumer Walks Back Threats… Kind of

    McConnell Admonishes Schumer’s SCOTUS Threats, Schumer Walks Back Threats… Kind of

    “Every time Democrats try to threaten sitting judges, we are reminded exactly—exactly—why the Framers gave them life tenure and salary protection.” and

    Is anyone buying Schumer’s nonpology?

    During a pro-abortion rally, Senate Majority Leader Schumer threatened Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    When Chief Justice Roberts responded, a Schumer spokesman doubled down, accusing Roberts of colluding with the “right wing.”

    Thursday, McConnell rebuked Schumer’s remarks from the Senate floor. Schumer addressed the chamber after McConnell and claimed he didn’t mean to be quite so harsh and that he was addressing Republican lawmakers and not justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Also, that he’s from Brooklyn.

    McConnell isn’t buying it:

    And neither do I. Schumer’s spox doubled down on the remarks and lashed out at Chief Justice Roberts, so spare me the “harsh language” nonsense.

    Schumer’s recantation (sort of):

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

    Of course I didn’t 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. 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 who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that, too.

    Now, what will remain long after the clamor over my comments dies down is the issue at hand: A woman’s constitutional right to choose and Republican attempts to invalidate it. The fact that my Republican colleagues have worked systematically over the course of decades to install the judicial infrastructure to take down Roe v. Wade and do very real damage to the country and to the American way of life, that is the issue that will remain. And we owe, I owe, an obligation to the women of America to fight for their constitutional rights. I yield the floor.”



    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Mark Michael | March 5, 2020 at 3:30 pm

    Unfortunately, some SCOTUS justices are influenced by pressure from congressional types, sad to say. They should vote/rule strictly on the basis of the pertinent law, U.S. Constitution (if it’s applicable to the case before them), or the relevant state constitution, not on political pressure, how PC it is, etc.

    What comes to mind is C. J. Roberts voting in favor of ObamaCare when its constitutionality was challenged before the SCOTUS. The scuttlebutt was that he felt it was unconstitutional and planned to vote that way, but then he switched his vote at the last day because he wanted to defer to the legislative and executive branch.

      Milhouse in reply to Mark Michael. | March 5, 2020 at 5:43 pm

      “The scuttlebutt” bears absolutely no relationship to reality, because the nobody who drinks at that scuttlebutt is in a position to know. It could be accidentally on the mark, but it could just as easily be 180° off.

    tom_swift | March 5, 2020 at 3:42 pm

    Oy, what a coward.

    Is Schumer claiming that’s a Brooklyn thing?

    SeekingRationalThought | March 5, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    What he actually said was “I’m from Brooklyn and we are stupid and so are you.” Sorry Brooklyn, you voted for this piece of garbage.

    Subotai Bahadur | March 5, 2020 at 4:14 pm

    The key thing to consider is what is the reaction after the Left commits physical violence against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Which they likely will do. The Democrats will of course deny that what they openly called for has any bearing on what happened.

    If the law no longer binds one side of a political dispute, it really cannot be said to bind the other. And at that point things get . . . interesting in the Chinese sense.

    Subotai Bahadur

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 5, 2020 at 5:38 pm

      “……may you live in interesting times…….”

      Milhouse in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 5, 2020 at 5:53 pm

      The law has nothing to say about it. Legally any violence that results is on the perpetrators, not on the politicians whose rhetoric motivated them. The first amendment protects robust political debate. It doesn’t protect actual incitement, or “true threats”, but Schumer’s words were neither.

    ugottabekiddinme | March 5, 2020 at 4:20 pm

    Glad he read Schumer’s threats into the Congressional Record, but will Leader McConnell follow through and bring Sen. Hawley’s motion for censure of Schumer to a vote?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend