Schumer threatens 2 Supreme Court justices

[Bormio]

... saying they (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) will pay the price for their decisions.  What price, Chuckie?  You gonna impeach them, or hang them?  Media yawns ... of course.

[I AM IRONMAN]

Schumer is pos..like Schiff and Pelosi...losers who hate losing but LOSING big time

[zulu1128]

Watching his attempt to walk it back was equal parts painful and hilarious. 

[Bormio]

When Laurence Tribe and Chris Hayes say the behavior of a Democrat was abhorrent, you know they messed up bigly.

[Blueliner]

This is a colossal eff up by Schumer. Just....wow. Now let's see if anything is done about it. I put the odds at about 5% that he gets smacked around a little. Now if Mike McCarthy or another Repub would have said something like that to SCOTUS justices...mentioning them by their names.... I'm pretty sure it'd be a whole different story raging through the unethical, lying, msm. It's mind-boggling that these arrogant assholes think that they can just get away with this type of behavior with no accountability from anyone or the msm....oh wait, they always have been. My bad. 

 

[Slotback Right]

I just fired off emails to both of my US Senators, urging them to vote to censure Schumer. I urge everybody here to do the same. Schumer's threats were reprehensible.

[15yds4gibberish]

I'm very glad to hear that Trump supporters are now  realizing the importance of protecting judges from apparent political retaliation -- Been writing about this for a long time.  

Still, it is possible to hold these three thoughts simultaneously:

• Schumer's comments were obviously inappropriate.
• Trump's comments on the judiciary have been far worse.
• The Chief Justice was wrong in singling out Schumer over Trump.

There!  I found the sweet spot.  Enough nuance to piss off just about everybody....

 

[concha]

2 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I'm very glad to hear that Trump supporters are now  realizing the importance of protecting judges from apparent political retaliation -- Been writing about this for a long time.  

Still, it is possible to hold these three thoughts simultaneously:

• Schumer's comments were obviously inappropriate.
• Trump's comments on the judiciary have been far worse.
• The Chief Justice was wrong in singling out Schumer over Trump.

There!  I found the sweet spot.  Enough nuance to piss off just about everybody....

 

 

What threats did Trump make? Or were they just criticisms?

Serious question.

 

[Bormio]

9 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I'm very glad to hear that Trump supporters are now  realizing the importance of protecting judges from apparent political retaliation -- Been writing about this for a long time.  

Still, it is possible to hold these three thoughts simultaneously:

• Schumer's comments were obviously inappropriate.
• Trump's comments on the judiciary have been far worse.
• The Chief Justice was wrong in singling out Schumer over Trump.

There!  I found the sweet spot.  Enough nuance to piss off just about everybody....

 

First point dead on

Second and third - dead wrong

[15yds4gibberish]

42 minutes ago, concha said:

 

What threats did Trump make? Or were they just criticisms?

Serious question.

 

Look, I already know where this discussion is going.  You are going to do the word parsing thing you do so well when it comes to defending IMPOTUS, and suddenly forget how to do when it doesn't suit your point.  I've been commenting on IMPOTUS intimidating federal judges for a long time.  A fairly recent example below.  You're going to try to say there is a difference between a 'threat' and 'intimidation,' or you are going to claim what IMPOTUS tweeted below was just innocent mistakes or something.  Then that will force me to ask you what 'threats' did Schumer make?  And we'll spin around talking about the definitions of words when we both know IMPOTUS has said inappropriate things about judges since before he was elected. 

On 2/12/2020 at 9:29 AM, 15yds4gibberish said:

My very first sentence in this thread contained a claim that we’ve entered serious banana republic territory.  I’d say IMPOTUS intimidating judges last night furthers the argument.  IMPOTUS tweeted:

Let’s break down the lies: 

1.     Judges don’t decide what conditions prisoners are kept in – Those decisions are made by the prisons that house inmates.

2.     As was noted in the court filings, Manafort was not confined to a cell, he was housed in a self-contained “VIP” suite in Northern Neck, including “his own bathroom and shower facility,” “his own personal telephone” which he could use more than 12 hours a day, etc..

3.     Manafort fucked up and requested he be moved anyway – So off to Alexandria he went – Just as he asked.

4.     This judge has never ‘treated’ Clinton in any official way, because despite years of investigation, prosecutors didn’t find sufficient evidence to charge.  She’s never been convicted.

If my reaction to all this banana republic shit is what comprises “pearl clutching,” so be it.  The question isn’t why am I clutching pearls, it’s why aren’t you?

 

[concha]

1 minute ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Look, I already know where this discussion is going.  You are going to do the word parsing thing you do so well when it comes to defending IMPOTUS, and suddenly forget how to do when it doesn't suit your point.  I've been commenting on IMPOTUS intimidating federal judges for a long time.  A fairly recent example below.  You're going to try to say there is a difference between a 'threat' and 'intimidation,' or you are going to claim what IMPOTUS tweeted below was just innocent mistakes or something.  Then that will force me to ask you what 'threats' did Schumer make?  And we'll spin around talking about the definitions of words when we both know IMPOTUS has said inappropriate things about judges since before he was elected. 

 

 

No, you don't know.

Criticism ("What a terrible decision") and threats/intimidation ("...you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!") are vastly different animals. Unless the threat is from a leftist, apparently.

 

[RedZone]

...dictator trump has a great history with "judges".

Nothing to see here in yet another fox party circle jerk. 

Other than

...4 old men embarrassing themselves.

[15yds4gibberish]

39 minutes ago, concha said:

 

No, you don't know.

Criticism ("What a terrible decision") and threats/intimidation ("...you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!") are vastly different animals. Unless the threat is from a leftist, apparently.

 

Ahhhnd it's pretty much going the way I said it would.  You are pretending not to recognize IMPOTUS intimidation, and seeing only threat in what Schumer said.

I'm already on record saying what Schumer said is wrong.  But his was a ham-handed paraphrase of what Kavanaugh said during his confirmation:

• Schumer about Kavanugh and Gorsuch: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price."
• Kavanugh to Senate Dems during confirmation: "You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind."

Are whirlwinds whirlwinds?  Was Kavanugh threatening the country? 

When IMPOTUS does what he's accusing Schumer of doing, is IMPOTUS threatening a US Senator?:

 

I'm going to go way out on a limb with the same basic point I made in my first post in this thread.  All of this is bad for the country.  Apparently only some of us can see it.

[zulu1128]

1 hour ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

• Trump's comments on the judiciary have been far worse.

 

Obviously no one looks great here.

 

That said, this is a pretty silly and easily debunkable claim.

Looking forward to the list of judiciary members to which Drumpf issued specific threats by name. 
 

Engaging in silly hyperbole like this damages the credibility of was otherwise a not-terrible post. 

[concha]

1 hour ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Ahhhnd it's pretty much going the way I said it would.  You are pretending not to recognize IMPOTUS intimidation, and seeing only threat in what Schumer said.

I'm already on record saying what Schumer said is wrong.  But his was a ham-handed paraphrase of what Kavanaugh said during his confirmation:

• Schumer about Kavanugh and Gorsuch: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price."
• Kavanugh to Senate Dems during confirmation: "You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind."

Are whirlwinds whirlwinds?  Was Kavanugh threatening the country? 

When IMPOTUS does what he's accusing Schumer of doing, is IMPOTUS threatening a US Senator?:

 

I'm going to go way out on a limb with the same basic point I made in my first post in this thread.  All of this is bad for the country.  Apparently only some of us can see it.

 

Annnddd it's not my damned fault that you can't distinguish between a criticism and a threat.  What intimidation is there in saying you think a decision was bad?  That's a criticism. Saying "Bad decision and you're going to get it for making that decision"? THAT is threat/intimidation.

crit·i·cism
/ˈkridəˌsizəm/
noun
1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

 

in·tim·i·date
/inˈtiməˌdāt/
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

 

And how is Kavanaugh saying that the Dems released a whirlwind a threat from Kavanaugh himself? What negative consequence or action is Kavanaugh saying will occur to the Dems? None.  

As regards the last bit,  is it a threat to Schumer - who just actually DID intimidate/threaten two Supreme Court justices? You could argue that Trump made a threat akin to saying a felon who was just caught breaking the law red-handed, "You're going to jail!".  Trump commented ON AN ALREADY COMMITTED WRONG.  Schumer was was trying to get a future result through intimidation (see the very definition of intimidation conveniently provided above).

 

End of lesson.

You're welcome.

 

[I AM IRONMAN]

1 minute ago, concha said:

 

Annnddd it's not my damned fault that you can't distinguish between a criticism and a threat.  What intimidation is there in saying you think a decision was bad?  That a criticism. Saying "Bad decision and you're going to get it for making that decision"? THAT is threat/intimidation.

crit·i·cism
/ˈkridəˌsizəm/
noun
1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

 

in·tim·i·date
/inˈtiməˌdāt/
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

 

And how is Kavanaugh saying that the Dems released a whirlwind a threat from Kavanaugh himself? What negative consequence or action is Kavanaugh saying will occur to the Dems? None.  

As regards the last bit,  is it a threat to Schumer - who just actually DID intimidate/threaten two Supreme Court justices? You could argue that Trump made a threat akin to saying a felon who was just caught breaking the law red-handed, "You're going to jail!".  Trump commented ON AN ALREADY COMMITTED WRONG.  Schumer was was trying to get a future result through intimidation (see the very definition of intimidation conveniently provided above).

 

End of lesson.

You're welcome.

 

Its unbelievable how brain washed some on here are.

The sky is blue

No its not!

[RedZone]

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts

In His Own Words: The President's Attacks on the Courts

[RedZone]

29 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Obviously no one looks great here.

 

That said, this is a pretty silly and easily debunkable claim.

Looking forward to the list of judiciary members to which Drumpf issued specific threats by name. 
 

Engaging in silly hyperbole like this damages the credibility of was otherwise a not-terrible post. 

Relax, zulu1128

Chuck is not going to take out john roberts....

[zulu1128]

Chip is trying to tell people to relax, and I’m here for it lol. 

[15yds4gibberish]

37 minutes ago, concha said:

...

in·tim·i·date
/inˈtiməˌdāt/
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

...

  Schumer was was trying to get a future result through intimidation (see the very definition of intimidation conveniently provided above).

 

While I disagree with your post in exactly the way I anticipated, I was tired of parsing words before we even started.  So here's an example of intimidation by the most 'overawe' inducing IMPOTUS in the world  calling out two supreme court justices by name,  seeking a future result he wants - In this case recusal  most probably in advance of his financial records case about to be heard at the high court (Note: This is only one of a few tweets that day, and  Sotomayor's dissent in question never mentioned IMPOTUS by name .)  

 

Unless of course, tweeting is proper legal procedure now...

[NorCalRuss]

1 hour ago, concha said:

 

Annnddd it's not my damned fault that you can't distinguish between a criticism and a threat.  What intimidation is there in saying you think a decision was bad?  That's a criticism. Saying "Bad decision and you're going to get it for making that decision"? THAT is threat/intimidation.

crit·i·cism
/ˈkridəˌsizəm/
noun
1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

 

in·tim·i·date
/inˈtiməˌdāt/
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

 

And how is Kavanaugh saying that the Dems released a whirlwind a threat from Kavanaugh himself? What negative consequence or action is Kavanaugh saying will occur to the Dems? None.  

As regards the last bit,  is it a threat to Schumer - who just actually DID intimidate/threaten two Supreme Court justices? You could argue that Trump made a threat akin to saying a felon who was just caught breaking the law red-handed, "You're going to jail!".  Trump commented ON AN ALREADY COMMITTED WRONG.  Schumer was was trying to get a future result through intimidation (see the very definition of intimidation conveniently provided above).

 

End of lesson.

You're welcome.

 

 

[zulu1128]

6 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

While I disagree with your post in exactly the way I anticipated, I was tired of parsing words before we even started.  So here's an example of intimidation by the most 'overawe' inducing IMPOTUS in the world  calling out two supreme court justices by name,  seeking a future result he wants - In this case recusal  most probably in advance of his financial records case about to be heard at the high court (Note: This is only one of a few tweets that day, and  Sotomayor's dissent in question never mentioned IMPOTUS by name .)  

 

Unless of course, tweeting is proper legal procedure now...

That’s intimidation? 
 

Sounds more like whining, unless one actually scares that easily lol

[concha]

19 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

While I disagree with your post in exactly the way I anticipated, I was tired of parsing words before we even started.  So here's an example of intimidation by the most 'overawe' inducing IMPOTUS in the world  calling out two supreme court justices by name,  seeking a future result he wants - In this case recusal  most probably in advance of his financial records case about to be heard at the high court (Note: This is only one of a few tweets that day, and  Sotomayor's dissent in question never mentioned IMPOTUS by name .)  

 

Unless of course, tweeting is proper legal procedure now...

 

Dude, seriously.... where is the intimidation?  

Trump disagrees with her actions.  There is no threat. No implied negative consequences... nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

If they don't recuse themselves then...                     ?????????????  Oh, bupkus.

And exactly what is in that tweet that is meant to "overawe or frighten"?

 

You are making yourself look silly.

But calling the God Emperor "IMPOTUS" is really, really cool.  👍

 

[RedZone]

24 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Unless of course, tweeting is proper legal procedure now...

...dictator trump passed that law in 2016...believe it was an executive order or something like that.

[15yds4gibberish]

32 minutes ago, concha said:

 

Dude, seriously.... where is the intimidation?  

...

 

 

The office of the President is the most powerful in the world.  All IMPOTUS shit posts about individuals are designed to make frother's froth, who in turn harass and intimidate that individual, which is, in fact, what they do.      He very much was trying to obtain a specific outcome.   

That meets all the criteria of your definition.   

32 minutes ago, concha said:

 

If they don't recuse themselves then...                     ?????????????  Oh, bupkus.

And exactly what is in that tweet that is meant to "overawe or frighten"?

 

By this same criteria, Shumer's tweet wasn't a threat, cuz bupkus.