Honest quesion: Is Schumer "undermining Democracy"?

[CitizenBBN]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-rare-rebuke-schumer-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous

He just called out SCOTUS justices by names with broad threatening language easily the match of anything Trump has uttered.

When Trump calls out judges it's abhorrent behavior. Is Schumer going to be seen the same way? Will CNN and MSNBC be outraged at his comments today?

[dan_bgblue]

I think that is a fair question and I will not make a prediction as both those networks are enigmatic in their actions and often operate using various reasoning one day and other thoughts the next.

Aww what the heck, I suspect that they run and hide and do not voice their conviction if they have one.

[dan_bgblue]

CNN has this

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/schumer-roberts-threats-supreme-court/index.html

[dan_bgblue]

So far, MSNBC has ignored the issue

[dan_bgblue]

MSNBC did not ignore the abortion issue, they just ignored Chuckie's threats

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-told-supreme-court-about-my-abortion-so-strangers-won-ncna1149661

[UKHistory]

I saw MSNC discuss it. I didn't listen to get a sense as to where their opinion morning Joe program came down fully.

Roberts rebuked Trump when the president questioned an Indiana judge's decisions based on his Mexican heritage.

Roberts rebuked Schumer for the unspecific "threatening" language.

Schumer's language does undermine democracy. Others in positions of political influence have been doing the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. So I am calling balls and strikes the same as best I can.

I give Al Gore a lot of credit to accept the supreme court ruling in favor of W with grace and respect for the institutions.

We need good winners and losers far more often.

[Doc]

Mitched called him out and Schumer uses the old

1) my words were taken incorrectly and
2) I am a New Yorker, its how we talk!

I find this INCREDIBLY ironic considering his and the rest of the democrats comstantly misrepesenting anything Trump says to make it as damning as possible (example the Corona virus hoax statement where DJT was clearly referring to the left blaming him for the spread, not that the virus was a hoax) and that Trump too is a Nah Yarker who gets no leeway for being one.

McConnell slams Schumer on Senate floor for controversial remarks directed at Supreme Court justices

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-to-call-out-schumer-for-controversial-remarks-directed-towards-supreme-court-justices

[ukpumacat]

What Schumer said was awful. And Roberts was right to condemn it.

I hate that on twitter some are saying, "Well sure, what he said was bad but Trump called out RGB or whatever".

When your defense of something is pointing out what someone else did first....its a pretty lousy defense.

Of course, I see it all the time on this board and all over twitter, etc on both sides. Unfortunately, we now live in a country where everything is justified because what the other side is doing is "Worse". That is a fast track to pure awfulness.

What Schumer said is awful. Point blank. End of story.

[Doc]

I don't know of anybody who dismissed Trumps statements toward Ginsberg....or his attack on the latino judge ruling on his case. However I do not recall Trump implying any harm or consequences.

[MickintheHam]

What Schumer said was awful. And Roberts was right to condemn it.

I hate that on twitter some are saying, "Well sure, what he said was bad but Trump called out RGB or whatever".

When your defense of something is pointing out what someone else did first....its a pretty lousy defense.

Of course, I see it all the time on this board and all over twitter, etc on both sides. Unfortunately, we now live in a country where everything is justified because what the other side is doing is "Worse". That is a fast track to pure awfulness.

What Schumer said is awful. Point blank. End of story.

You are correct. As I said in another thread, Pelosi and Schumer had a great opportunity to take the high road and draw a contrast with Trump. Their real colors have now shown and they are gutter dwellers. Very sad. They missed a great opportunity.

[ukpumacat]

You are correct. As I said in another thread, Pelosi and Schumer had a great opportunity to take the high road and draw a contrast with Trump. Their real colors have now shown and they are gutter dwellers. Very sad. They missed a great opportunity.

100% agree my friend.

[Catonahottinroof]

Prettt stupid statement by someone who judges/is judged by the words he hears/speaks.

[Basket Case]

100% agree my friend.

Hey, something we can all agree on!

As others mentioned, it pissed me off too when Trump attacked the Latino judge and when he called Judges "Obama Judges". Instead of trying to keep the Supreme Courts' reputation strong, Shumer takes the low road. Credit Roberts for swiftly condemning all actions regardless of the direction of the attack.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't know of anybody who dismissed Trumps statements toward Ginsberg....or his attack on the latino judge ruling on his case. However I do not recall Trump implying any harm or consequences.

And that is a significant difference.

PResidents have long questioned legal decisions, and "called out" those verdicts. IMO that is NOT a threat to democracy. It's OK for a President or Congressman to disagree with a ruling.

Trump IMO stepped that up to inappropriate levels by calling out not the verdict but the judge him/herself. Now, I think every sane person knows there are Clinton/Obama judges and Bush/Trump judges, but a POTUS should tread lightly. Calling out "judicial activism" generally in response to me is OK b/c that's a valid question for the political realm and a valid campaign issue in fact, but to call out a particular judge starts getting really iffy really fast.

Obviously Trump calling out a judge b/c of his ethnicity is absolutely unacceptable.

His comments on RGB and Sotomayer are a little more gray b/c he said they should recuse themselves b/c of bias. It's dangerous territory b/c it calls them out by name and is clearly trying to put pressure on things, but it's not a threat. IMO had he said "judges who come out with political statements against my Administration and issues I ran on should recuse themselves from hearing those cases", that's IMO a very fair position. In fact it's dang near the RIGHT legal position. Calling out SCOTUS judges for that, even though that in RGB's case that's exactly what she did, is maybe not absolutely undermining democracy, but there's a better way to put it that doesn't do as much to potentially undermine the institution.

But Schumer a) called out specific judges, and b) clearly made it a threat. He can politician two step all he wants, but "you" in that statement twice makes it clear the threat wasn't to the US Senate but to those justices.

Now, I agree with Puma and History that two wrongs don't make a right, so it doesn't excuse Trump's behavior at all.

But it does make my longstanding point on here that you need only look around politically to see that Trump is not really out there over the line any more than the opposition, and in fact in some cases he's not even as far gone as those who hate him so much they are losing their minds over it.

Trump's constant belittling and personal attacks are over the line, but he's not called on people to harass the opposition in the streets like Maxine Waters. He's no doubt wanting the coronovirus to not impact his reelection but he hasn't named it after a political opponent. He's boorish and a bully but he hasn't called for government regulation of free speech like several elected liberals.

the point being that he's down in the mud with everyone else, and he slings it as well as anyone else, but that mud pile was there before he was elected. People just didn't notice it so much .


The bigger point being things are getting worse politically, not better. Trump sure is hurting that discourse, but no one else seems reluctant to go down that road either. It's all their fault at this point.

[MickintheHam]

I don't know of anybody who dismissed Trumps statements toward Ginsberg....or his attack on the latino judge ruling on his case. However I do not recall Trump implying any harm or consequences.

Implying? He flat out threatened them!

[dan_bgblue]

Mick, I do not see any threat in the two most damning articles I could find on the net about the Presidents comments about Curiel (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/judge-curiel-trump-border-wall/index.html), and Sotomayor and Ginsburg (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/trump-calls-for-sotamayor-ginsburg-recusal-supreme-court-117315)

You may see it and we disagree, but I would appreciate you sharing your thoughts on what constitutes a threat in either of these articles. I can easily see how a case for racism in one article could be made and won, but I fail to see an overt threat.

Thanks

[MickintheHam]

Dan, the threat comes from harassing the judges, their families and their staffs. The radicals will do everything to disrupt their lives. Schumer just gave them a free pass to do anything and everything.

What happened to Sarah Sanders was child’s play compared to what these zealots can do. As we saw with the Trump impeachment the threshhold for abuse of power is pretty low. Don’t mistake for one minute that the Democrats won’t work to impeach. That was certainly the message from Schumer.

[Catonahottinroof]

I think Dan was thinking you asserted Trump made a threat.
Dan, the threat comes from harassing the judges, their families and their staffs. The radicals will do everything to disrupt their lives. Schumer just gave them a free pass to do anything and everything.

What happened to Sarah Sanders was child’s play compared to what these zealots can do. As we saw with the Trump impeachment the threshhold for abuse of power is pretty low. Don’t mistake for one minute that the Democrats won’t work to impeach. That was certainly the message from Schumer.

[MickintheHam]

I think Dan was thinking you asserted Trump made a threat.

Thanks. I misread an earlier post. Trump made no threat.

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks to you both. We are on the same page, and Mick, I do agree that there is no shame among the group of loons nor is their any respect for views other than their own, and they have no fear of making outlandish statements to the cameras or the press to try and advance their agenda.

I do believe that their is enough respect for the judiciary among the house and senate that the Schumers and Pelosis of the world will be held in check on that front. No doubt they would put together another impeachment proceeding if they thought there was a 20% chance of it sticking to the wall.

[Doc]

Implying? He flat out threatened them!

Initially I read this as Trump is threatening but think you mean Chuckie. It is hard to tell as your reply is to my Trump statements and does not mention Schumee

[MickintheHam]

Thanks Dan. Sometimes I am easily confused when the thread transitions from the subject line to another person or thing.

[Doc]

Initially I read this as Trump is threatening but think you mean Chuckie. It is hard to tell as your reply is to my Trump statements and does not mention Schumee

Edit: later thread clears it up..as I suspect

[Doc]

Thanks Dan. Sometimes I am easily confused when the thread transitions from the subject line to another person or thing.

What happens when you get old


Now get off my yard!

[UKHistory]

What Schumer said was awful. And Roberts was right to condemn it.

I hate that on twitter some are saying, "Well sure, what he said was bad but Trump called out RGB or whatever".

When your defense of something is pointing out what someone else did first....its a pretty lousy defense.

Of course, I see it all the time on this board and all over twitter, etc on both sides. Unfortunately, we now live in a country where everything is justified because what the other side is doing is "Worse". That is a fast track to pure awfulness.

What Schumer said is awful. Point blank. End of story.

That is exactly. Justifying what someone says because that support your team, is bogus. The only was to have a civil discourse to view things objectively fairly. You start by demanding a certain standard from your own side.

[dan_bgblue]

NY York Sun Op Ed (https://www.nysun.com/editorials/judges-the-whirlwind-indeed/91041/)

[CitizenBBN]

NY York Sun Op Ed (https://www.nysun.com/editorials/judges-the-whirlwind-indeed/91041/)

That is exactly what they should do. It would be quite the hubub but boy it would send a message. SCOTUS is loathe to push on the other branches so directly but it would do a lot to make it clear the Court won't take that kind of threat.