Yesterday, aging democrat Senator Chuck Schumer decided to threaten two Supreme Court justices in a highly publicized ‘rally’ concerning an abortion law in Louisiana and released the “whirlwind” of condemnation. However, his blatantly inflammatory remarks were blasted by conservative and liberals across the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts was moved to issue a severe and forceful rebuke, calling Schumer’s enraging comments “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”
President Trump also called out the hypocritical senator, musing that if a conservative had said anything like it, calls for “impeachment” would echo the halls of congress.
After the backlash, Schumer’s team of sycophants came up with an excuse. A spokesman, who apparently thinks that voters, Justices, and the nation itself is too stupid to read, blamed Roberts’ “right wing interpretation” of the remarks.
Many people argue, ‘Liar, liar pants on fire.’
New: Schumer’s spokesman fires back, says Justice Roberts followed “the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said.” pic.twitter.com/Eqxn0zxbPx
— Todd Ruger (@ToddRuger) March 4, 2020
As Americans, we’re supposed to believe that calling out two Supreme Court justices BY NAME actually means he was talking about the Senate? Come on.
For reference, this is the comment that the Schumer team is now saying “We we’re talking to the justices, we were talking about the Senate GOP”https://t.co/boLogaUAnm
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) March 4, 2020
Incidentally, here is a remark by Schumer a few weeks ago when the president supposedly attacked the Supreme Court liberal justices (which he didn’t):
With President Trump publicly attacking a judge:
Now would be the time for Chief Justice Roberts to speak up.
Now would be the time for the Chief Justice to directly and specifically defend the independence of the federal judiciary.
I hope he will see fit to, and do it today. pic.twitter.com/xspNKwRDys
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 13, 2020
Yet now, Schumer specifically 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,” he added.
The extraordinary back-and-forth began hours earlier at a pro-choice rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, when Schumer ominously singled out President Trump’s two Supreme Court picks: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer warned. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Roberts replied in his remarkable written statement, obtained by Fox News: “This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'”
Roberts continued: “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.”
Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman quickly responded by accusing Roberts of bias, further escalating the confrontation.
Goodman insisted that Schumer was addressing Republican lawmakers when he said a “price” would be paid — even though Schumer had explicitly named Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
“Women’s health care rights are at stake and Americans from every corner of the country are in anguish about what the court might do to them,” Goodman said in a statement to Fox News. “Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”
He added: “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
That was an apparent reference to Trump’s call for those liberal justices to recuse themselves from some cases due to alleged bias. (“I just don’t know how they cannot recuse themselves to anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related,” Trump said. Ginsburg, who has publicly defended Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as “very decent” and “very smart,” previously called Trump a “faker,” and Sotomayor sharply criticized the administration in a recent dissent.)
Late Wednesday, Trump used Schumer’s own words to condemn him.
“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,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!”
Trump also tweeted: “This is a direct & dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he would introduce a resolution to censure Schumer.
“I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame,” Hawley wrote. “So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt.”
Even left-wing Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe tweeted: “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.”
“The American Bar Association is deeply troubled by today’s statements from the Senate Minority Leader threatening two sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over their upcoming votes in a pending case,” the ABA said in a statement. “Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats — whether real or allegorical. Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable.”
Schumer noted at the rally that an upcoming Supreme Court case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, is the first “major” abortion case since President Trump’s court picks have been on the bench.
The dispute, dealing with restrictions over who can perform abortions, involves a Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016, before either Trump justice was on the Supreme Court and before conservatives held a 5-4 majority.
The law in question requires abortion doctors in Louisiana to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case a patient experiences complications during or after a procedure. Those backing the law argue that it regulates abortion providers similarly to how other medical providers are regulated by the state while also ensuring doctors are competent. Opponents say that it is targeted at abortion providers with the goal of shutting them down, citing a 2016 case out of Texas in which the Supreme Court invalidated a very similar law.
The court’s opinion in the 2016 case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, said the law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because it would significantly reduce the number of available facilities in the state.
During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Kavanaugh and Roberts questioned whether Louisiana might be different from Texas in terms of the practical effect the law would have.
“Assume all the doctors who currently perform abortions can obtain admitting privileges, could you say that the law still imposes an undue burden, even if there were no effect?” Kavanaugh asked.
Roberts suggested other states may have different standards that might be constitutional.
Gorsuch did not speak during the arguments.