Liberal hysteria

[Elijah John]

Chuck Schumer just threatened Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh over an abortion case they are hearing. Saying they will "pay the price" and "will release the whirlwind" and "you won't know what hit you".

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/04/ ... the-price/

Scroll down..

For debate.

1) Are such threats legal? Or are they covered under "free speech"?

2) Is this hysterical rhetoric a sign of desperation from liberal Democrats?

3) And who in the world does Chuck Schumer think he is, what gives him the right to threaten Supreme Court justices?

Chief justice Roberts issued a stern rebuke. I wonder if that is all that is likely to happen, legally.

[Elijah John]

Chief Justice Roberts considered it a threat and rebuked Senator Schumer for it. In light of all this, shouldn't Mr. Schumer at least be censured by the Senate, and lose his post as minority leader? If not, why not?

Democrats accuse President Trump of causing a "constitutional crises" and of being a "threat to our very Democracy".

What could be a greater threat to Democracy, the separation of powers and to the Constitution than the Senate minority leader threatening two justices of the Supreme Court?

Should Schumer resign?

[Bust Nak]

1) Are such threats legal? Or are they covered under "free speech"?

Free speech was made for this.

2) Is this hysterical rhetoric a sign of desperation from liberal Democrats?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that mobilising people to vote Democrats amounts to hysterical rhetoric, is false.

3) And who in the world does Chuck Schumer think he is...

Someone with an receptive audience.

what gives him the right to threaten Supreme Court justices?

In one sense the Constitution, in another, we the people.

Chief justice Roberts issued a stern rebuke. I wonder if that is all that is likely to happen, legally.

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know" didn't have legal repercussion, why would this? Is this a case of "Law For Thee, But Not For Me?"

shouldn't Mr. Schumer at least be censured by the Senate, and lose his post as minority leader? If not, why not?

Of course not. He did nothing wrong.

What could be a greater threat to Democracy, the separation of powers and to the Constitution than the Senate minority leader threatening two justices of the Supreme Court?

You already have the answer: Trump of causing a constitutional crises and of being a threat to our very Democracy is a threat to Democracy.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Bust Nak]

So Donald Trump is a threat to the Democracy of the USA, and Chuck Schumer actually threatening Supreme Court justices by name is not? Do you see any irony in your position here?

Trump's actions and policies being a threat to Democracy a matter of opinion. Schumer actually threatening the SCJ is a matter of fact.

So you're OK with the minority leader of the Senate threatening two Supreme Court Justices and attempting to intimidate them into voting his way? Really??

And remember, the Chief Justice himself considered Schumer's statements to be threats.

It seems that you are attempting to defend the indefensible. Is this going to be the new liberal norm now?

[Bust Nak]

So Donald Trump is a threat to the Democracy of the USA, and Chuck Schumer actually threatening Supreme Court justices by name is not?

That's right.

Do you see any irony in your position here?

None what so ever.

Trump's actions and policies being a threat to Democracy a matter of opinion. Schumer actually threatening the SCJ is a matter of fact.

Sure. And I hold the opinion that the fact that Schumer actually threatening the SCJ by name is not a threat to Democracy.

So you're OK with the minority leader of the Senate threatening two Supreme Court Justices and attempting to intimidate them into voting his way? Really??

And remember, the Chief Justice himself considered Schumer's statements to be threats.

Yes, really, I am Ok with that.

It seems that you are attempting to defend the indefensible. Is this going to be the new liberal norm now?

That's not a new thing. It's always been the norm to threaten to vote against the ruling party for doing things we don't like, I just wish our side actually carry out that threat more often. That's what democracy is all about. What's so indefensible about that?

[Elijah John]

That's not a new thing. It's always been the norm to threaten to vote against the ruling party for doing things we don't like, I just wish our side actually carry out that threat more often. That's what democracy is all about. What's so indefensible about that?

Threatening a vote in general terms is one thing. And that is Schumer's office defense to "walk his comments back" a bit.

But the reality remains that he threatened Justice Kavanagh and Justice Gorsuch by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to. They can't be voted out, so what was Chuck threatening? Impeachment? For what? Not ruling the way Chuck wants them to?

That is attempted intimidation of the Supreme Court. THAT kind of thing is a threat to Democracy. And it seems to be because he doesn't like the composition of the Court. But as President Obama said, "elections have consequences". The make-up of the Supreme Court is perhaps the most important one.

Such threats could also incite more extreme Leftists to violence. That seems to be the way Chief Justice Roberts took it.

It is amazing that you don't see that as a problem. And that kind of thinking and defending the indefensible seems to exemplify today's Democrat party and their extremism.

Liberals tend to get crazy when they lose power. (Chuck Schumer and co, not you), and will do anything to keep it.

When it doesn't go their way they smear, name call, incite harassment (ex. Maxine Waters) investigate, and now, it seems make threats.

Fair game?

Why not offer something positive for the Nation instead? And compete for the minds and hearts of voters. And not neglect "fly over" country and the working class?

[Bust Nak]

Threatening a vote in general terms is one thing. And that is Schumer's office defense to "walk his comments back" a bit.

Why would you even think it wasn't about voting in the first place?

But the reality remains that he threatened Justice Kavanagh and Justice Gorsuch by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to. They can't be voted out, so what was Chuck threatening?

Put 2 and 2 together, the Justices cannot be voted out, so what's left? Voting against the GOP of course.

That is attempted intimidation of the Supreme Court. THAT kind of thing is a threat to Democracy.

Opinion noted.

And it seems to be because he doesn't like the composition of the Court. But as President Obama said, "elections have consequences". The make-up of the Supreme Court is perhaps the most important one.

Hence why he is calling for a grass root movement to vote the Republicans out.

Such threats could also incite more extreme Leftists to violence. That seems to be the way Chief Justice Roberts took it.

That's the narrative he want you to believe. Lets just hope that he can put his political bias aside when it comes to the law.

It is amazing that you don't see that as a problem. And that kind of thinking and defending the indefensible seems to exemplify today's Democrat party and their extremism.

Again, what's so extreme with mobilising people to vote?

Liberals tend to get crazy when they lose power. (Chuck Schumer and co, not you), and will do anything to keep it.

When it doesn't go their way they smear, name call, incite harassment (ex. Maxine Waters) investigate, and now, it seems make threats.

Ah huh, which is why the FBI has elevated domestic far-left extremism to national threat priority, on par with ISIS terrorism, right? Oh wait, that wasn't what happened. That was actually for domestic far-right extremism.

Fair game?

No, not really fair at all. The problem (in the practical sense) with us liberals is our "when they go low, we go high" mentality. Great for taking the moral victory, not so good when it comes to the victory that counts.

Why not offer something positive for the Nation instead?

You mean something like safeguarding the reproductive rights of women?

And compete for the minds and hearts of voters. And not neglect "fly over" country and the working class?

They are not being neglected, health care reform and comprehensive welfare and social program will benefit "fly over" country and the working class the most.

[Elijah John]

Threatening a vote in general terms is one thing. And that is Schumer's office defense to "walk his comments back" a bit.

Why would you even think it wasn't about voting in the first place?

Because Supreme Court justices are not elected officials.

But the reality remains that he threatened Justice Kavanagh and Justice Gorsuch by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to. They can't be voted out, so what was Chuck threatening?

Put 2 and 2 together, the Justices cannot be voted out, so what's left? Voting against the GOP of course.

Perhaps to a reasonable person like yourself, but to Antifah extremists who have been known to commit violence in the name of "protest", or a BLM extremist. First of all Schumer has no business threatening SCJ at all, secondly he should know the incendiary potential of his words, and should weigh them far more carefully.

That is attempted intimidation of the Supreme Court. THAT kind of thing is a threat to Democracy.

Opinion noted.

So critiquing threats to the Supreme Court as dangerous to Democracy (if allowed to stand) is merely "opinion"? And citing President Trump as the real threat without any supporting evidence is not?? How does that work exactly. Is that the way we do business in a Democracy, threaten when we don't get our way? And harass, assemble on peoples lawn with bullhorns? Nefarious ends justifying nefarious means?

And it seems to be because he doesn't like the composition of the Court. But as President Obama said, "elections have consequences". The make-up of the Supreme Court is perhaps the most important one.

Hence why he is calling for a grass root movement to vote the Republicans out.

Vote? Fair, harass and attempt to intimdate? No way. Schumer's words sounded far more like the latter.

Such threats could also incite more extreme Leftists to violence. That seems to be the way Chief Justice Roberts took it.

That's the narrative he want you to believe. Lets just hope that he can put his political bias aside when it comes to the law.

That's a laugh, coming from someone who is defending the "non-parisan" Chuck Schumer, who along with Adam Schiff and co exemplify extreme political bias.

It is amazing that you don't see that as a problem. And that kind of thinking and defending the indefensible seems to exemplify today's Democrat party and their extremism.

Again, what's so extreme with mobilising people to vote?

Even IF, (big "if") that is what he was attempting, intimidation has no place in a Democracy. A third world Banana Republic maybe, but not in a civilized Democracy.

Liberals tend to get crazy when they lose power. (Chuck Schumer and co, not you), and will do anything to keep it.

When it doesn't go their way they smear, name call, incite harassment (ex. Maxine Waters) investigate, and now, it seems make threats.

Ah huh, which is why the FBI has elevated domestic far-left extremism to national threat priority, on par with ISIS terrorism, right? Oh wait, that wasn't what happened. That was actually for domestic far-right extremism.

And there are no Left-wing extremists on their list?? Are you sure about that?

It was a Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to kill Republicans at a softball game, and seriously wounded Rep Steve Scalise. It was CNN and co who attempted to smear the Covington Catholics kids and were sued for their efforts, and the Black Hebrew Israelites commited murder in Baltimore recently...shall I continue?

Fair game?

No, not really fair at all. The problem (in the practical sense) with us liberals is our "when they go low, we go high" mentality. Great for taking the moral victory, not so good when it comes to the victory that counts.

So threatening Supreme Court Justices by name and attempting to intimidate them is "going high" according to the Democrat party?? Or is that just their Senate Minority leaders idea of Democrat ethics.

Why not offer something positive for the Nation instead?

You mean something like safeguarding the reproductive rights of women?

You mean abortion on demand? I call that baby killing and infanticide. Abortion kills baby women too. Yeah, real positive.

And compete for the minds and hearts of voters. And not neglect "fly over" country and the working class?

They are not being neglected, health care reform and comprehensive welfare and social program will benefit "fly over" country and the working class the most.

For that to work, you have to tighten the border. Democrats stand for wide open borders, free tuition for illegal aliens, and free health care for them. That helps the alien at the expense of the American taxpayer, but not the American middle class, working class. Bernie Sanders himself is on record saying that illegal immigration depresses wages for the American worker. Bernie has gone even further to the Left.

Democrats have given up on the average American citizen, and instead of attempting to win them back, they are attempting to import more and more immigrants.

I ask you the same question I would ask any current Democrat candidate while they advocate wide-open borders. Where does it stop?

[Purple Knight]

I don't see liberals as hysterical. I see them as crusaders who are on the right side of history.

I would give my life to be one of them, but they've never really accepted me or my way of thinking.

[koko]

If Schumer's words constitute a "threat" requiring censure, what about the 54 threats or more made by Trump:


https://www.google.com/search?q=threats ... e&ie=UTF-8


Is this conduct befitting a president? And the fact that so many far right people succumb to his rheteoric like lieemings, doesn't that bespeak of hysteria as well?

All too often right wingers give themselves an imaginary authority with which to judge anyone who dares to disagree with them. What they need to do is to impose such standards upon themselves. Then they can apply it to all others.