Schumer threatens 2 Supreme Court justices

[15yds4gibberish]

9 minutes ago, RedZone said:

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

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Without going back and doing my homework, here's how I think it works.  Trumps tweets are official White House statements - subject to rules like they have to be saved and can't be destroyed..  But they don't qualify as court filings, which is what you need to do to make a case that a judge should recuse.

[RedZone]

2 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

 

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.   

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

You are talking to cinder blocks...just make fun of them like I do. 😀

[RedZone]

1 minute ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Without going back and doing my homework, here's how I think it works.  Trumps tweets are official White House statements - subject to rules like they have to be saved and can't be destroyed..  But they don't qualify as court filings, which is what you need to do to make a case that a judge should recuse.

You got it! 

[concha]

11 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

 

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.   

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

 

So, your argument is that Trump expressing disagreement in a tweet is going to scare the shit out of someone who has achieved one the nine highest legal positions in the country following (generally) a long legal career and congressional grilling and who has that job for life. 👍😂  Pray tell, who amongst our Senators, Congressmen and SCJs does not receive receive fairly regular harassment at some level? 

Oh, and you are talking about other people trying to harass and intimidate, not POTUS.

As regards, Schumer...  "...you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!" isn't threatening?  Paying a price and being hit by something (even figuratively) does not clearly state negative consequences?  🤣

You are exhibiting DBP level argumentation here, counselor.  I hope you're taking the week off.

 

 

 

 

[thc6795]

The Democrat Primary began with:

—6 minorities

—5 women

—3 millennials

—1 openly gay man

And Democrat voters rejected all of them for: Joe Biden & Bernie Sanders—two, straight, old white men.

But I thought they were the "party of diversity"? 

[I AM IRONMAN]

And now they are left with marble mouth and the old guy in the balcony from The Muppets

[concha]

[15yds4gibberish]

18 hours ago, concha said:

 

So, your argument is that Trump expressing disagreement in a tweet...

SCJ’s write dissents all the time.  Sotamayer did not mention IMPOTUS by name in her dissent.  IMPOTUS didn’t express disagreement in a tweet.  The most charitable interpretation is IMPOTUS mislead the public in an official WH statement by implying that Sotamayor wrote something that mentioned him by name (hint: he lied).  The statement was designed to inoculate IMPOTUS by filling the frothers with a sense of righteous indignation, demanding recusal on unnamed future cases (hint: his taxes).  Frother’s don’t actually go back and check what the dissent actually said.

 

18 hours ago, concha said:

..So, your argument is that Trump expressing disagreement in a tweet is going to scare the shit out of someone who has achieved one the nine highest legal positions in the country following (generally) a long legal career and congressional grilling and who has that job for life. 👍😂  Pray tell, who amongst our Senators, Congressmen and SCJs does not receive receive fairly regular harassment at some level? 

...

Kavanaugh is a SC justice too, enjoying all the same protections.  You seem to be arguing a toothless statement from Schumer is intimidating but one from the President isn’t -- Kavanugh was crying the last time I saw him, so maybe.  

My argument from the beginning has been that both statements are wrong.  IMPOTUS has been calling out judges by name since before the election.

18 hours ago, concha said:

 

...Oh, and you are talking about other people trying to harass and intimidate, not POTUS...

IMPOTUS understands exactly what his tweets incite - That's what everybody is afraid of, and fear of it is how he keeps his lapdogs in line.   I like presidents who hold themselves accountable to the consequences of their actions -- I'm conservative that way.  

18 hours ago, concha said:

...As regards, Schumer...  "...you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!" isn't threatening?  Paying a price and being hit by something (even figuratively) does not clearly state negative consequences?  🤣

...

Whenever a politician calls out a judge by name, and a judge responds in kind, it undermines the judiciary.  Politicians can criticize judicial decisions on their merits, for their reasoning, all they want, but they shouldn’t use threatening language. Baseless attacks on a judge’s integrity undermines  our faith in the rule of law.

When it comes to Schumer, I understood the context of the Kavanugh statement he was referencing.    While I don’t think he was seriously making a threat, and any threat by a minority Senator toward a SCJ is toothless at best, his statement did sound like a threat (especially to frothers with motivated reasoning) and as I’ve already written since the first post, he was completely wrong to use language like “you will pay the price.”  Schumer needs to be better than that.  We need to demand better from all our politicians.  Schumer did apologize.

When it comes to IMPOTUS, he called out two SCJ’s by name, using a misleading argument, not actually criticizing any specific policy, demanding recusal.  This is a well worn and consistenet pattern with him, feeding his victim narrative, and it is wrong.  In the aftermath of Schumer’s nonsense, IMPOTUS issued an official WH statement saying Schumer   “must pay a severe price” --  Virtually the same language for which he’s criticizing Schumer.  This is wrong too.  If you want to rationalize the corrosive and threatening language in one context but not the other, that’s up to you.

I’m not the one advocating low and inconsistent standards here.

[zulu1128]

I honestly thought watching 15yds4gibberish double/triple down on his dumb take would start to get old, but so far it hasn't.

[RedZone]

2 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

I honestly thought

Good one!

[RedZone]

2 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

SCJ’s write dissents all the time.  Sotamayer did not mention IMPOTUS by name in her dissent.  IMPOTUS didn’t express disagreement in a tweet.  The most charitable interpretation is IMPOTUS mislead the public in an official WH statement by implying that Sotamayor wrote something that mentioned him by name (hint: he lied).  The statement was designed to inoculate IMPOTUS by filling the frothers with a sense of righteous indignation, demanding recusal on unnamed future cases (hint: his taxes).  Frother’s don’t actually go back and check what the dissent actually said.

 

Kavanaugh is a SC justice too, enjoying all the same protections.  You seem to be arguing a toothless statement from Schumer is intimidating but one from the President isn’t -- Kavanugh was crying the last time I saw him, so maybe.  

My argument from the beginning has been that both statements are wrong.  IMPOTUS has been calling out judges by name since before the election.

IMPOTUS understands exactly what his tweets incite - That's what everybody is afraid of, and fear of it is how he keeps his lapdogs in line.   I like presidents who hold themselves accountable to the consequences of their actions -- I'm conservative that way.  

Whenever a politician calls out a judge by name, and a judge responds in kind, it undermines the judiciary.  Politicians can criticize judicial decisions on their merits, for their reasoning, all they want, but they shouldn’t use threatening language. Baseless attacks on a judge’s integrity undermines  our faith in the rule of law.

When it comes to Schumer, I understood the context of the Kavanugh statement he was referencing.    While I don’t think he was seriously making a threat, and any threat by a minority Senator toward a SCJ is toothless at best, his statement did sound like a threat (especially to frothers with motivated reasoning) and as I’ve already written since the first post, he was completely wrong to use language like “you will pay the price.”  Schumer needs to be better than that.  We need to demand better from all our politicians.  Schumer did apologize.

When it comes to IMPOTUS, he called out two SCJ’s by name, using a misleading argument, not actually criticizing any specific policy, demanding recusal.  This is a well worn and consistenet pattern with him, feeding his victim narrative, and it is wrong.  In the aftermath of Schumer’s nonsense, IMPOTUS issued an official WH statement saying Schumer   “must pay a severe price” --  Virtually the same language for which he’s criticizing Schumer.  This is wrong too.  If you want to rationalize the corrosive and threatening language in one context but not the other, that’s up to you.

I’m not the one advocating low and inconsistent standards here.

You can't tame these jimmy lee's. 😊

[Bormio]

Does gibberish have a scribe?

[I AM IRONMAN]

13 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Does gibberish have a scribe?

Cooters hitting the moonshine early!

[concha]

 

Did 15yds4gibberish seriously think I was going to read all that garbage?

He can't distinguish between threats/intimidation and criticism.

Proven.

Case closed.

 

[RedZone]

1 hour ago, concha said:

Did 15yds4gibberish seriously think I was going to read all that garbage?

It's pretty well documented you are NOT much of a reader.....