Roberts Rebukes Schumer For Threatening Justices With Retaliation Over Rulings

In an extraordinary attack on the independence of the judiciary, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer threatened  Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh with retaliation if they voted against abortion rights this term. As I discussed in my column yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments today in June Medical Services v. Russo. Schumer joined protests on the steps of the Court to warn the justices that they “will pay the price” if they vote against abortion rights. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke (as he did earlier with President Trump) to defend the integrity of the judiciary. He was right to do so. Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesmen in his threats of future retaliation.

At the rally, Schumer declared “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.”

It was an enormously popular statement at the rally and with many liberals. However, it was also a direct assault on the principles of our judicial system. There are good faith arguments on both sides of this case, but Schumer was trying to coerce or intimidate justices to yield to his demands for the outcome. It was a shameful moment for any member of Congress but particularly for the Democratic leader in the Senate.

It was also not an isolated incident. In an unprecedented filing in a prior gun rights case, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand, warned conservative justices that they should change their voting patterns or face congressional intervention. They wrote that the Supreme Court “can heal itself before the public demands” it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”  The brief written by Whitehouse was a shocking and raw threat of retaliation.

On this occasion, Roberts responded in a public statement:

“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.’ “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.”

I have been critical of Roberts for his failure to call out colleagues on the Court. However, on this occasion he is absolutely correct in denouncing Schumer for his intemperate and irresponsible rhetoric.

The Democrats have made Trump’s attack on the judiciary into a major political issue going into the 2020 election. I have agreed with that criticism of President Trump. However, they are comparatively quiet in the face of these threats from Schumer. Moreover, Democrats are now openly calling for litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees and demonizing Republican appointees who rule against their own positions.

The fear is not that the justices will yield to such threats. The Framers anticipated politicians like Schumer who would try to intimidate or harass members of the Court. Life tenure is the protection crafted to insulate members of the judiciary. No, the danger is how Schumer’s words further degrade the view of the rule of law and the court system as a whole.

Schumer needs to apologize without delay or reservation.

230 thoughts on “Roberts Rebukes Schumer For Threatening Justices With Retaliation Over Rulings”

  1. Even Laurence Tribe has tweeted his disapproval of what Schumer said:

    “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.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. With all due respect for your admiration for Mr. Schumer, his bold and inappropriate rhetoric reminds me of the need for term limits.

    2. yes Laurence Tribe is smarter than Shumer.

      Every big mouth in the DC Swamp should be asking themselves: do we really want to go there?

      I bet Shumer has an awesome security detail. I doubt Professor Tribe does. Wise of him to “clap back” at Chuckie

  2. SCHUMER should be punished by the Senate, without further delay. He should be shammed and be made to apologize publicly. He tried to spin it but there is NO SPIN he made the THREATS and insights the nut cases who support abortion to due harm. Censor SCHUMER NOW

  3. And we now have the rule of law sinking into the morass of Argentina, Cuba (decades ago).
    Shumer displays just why Trump is winning. It is because he and many others can’t stand to lose. Trump has made a difference, and will continue to do that. The dem’s see their world crumbling.

    1. I would posit that Schumer has been off the deep end for quite a while. Now that AOC appears to be losing her House seat, she wants to primary Schumer, so he has to show his bona fides.,

  4. “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.”

    Intimidation is the method of the left. We have even seen intimidation on the blog. Take note how Anon (now a multiplicity of aliases) abused and tried to intimidate a blog member on earlier threads.

    1. “Intimidation is the method of the left. We have even seen intimidation on the blog.”

      Nonsense from Allan.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, to you it is nonsense because you don’t think. However, others noted the abuse and one of his aliases almost admitted to that fact.

          1. Anon, nothing abusive. Your noted abuse is known by all too many and Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid and demonstrates that Stupidity everytime Anonymous the Stupid posts.

              1. “Are you 12?”

                No, but that would be the appropriate level for you and 6 for Anonymous the Stupid.

        1. Normal people post a few comments and get on with their lives. Guys like Allan hang out on blogs because they have nothing better to do. It’s pathetic.

          1. Yup

            Allan, George, Kurtz, TIA x 666, Seth, Paulie J / Anon / endless sockpuppets, Squeeky, …the forum is driven by pathetic individuals who represent much of our culture

            1. Anonymous – since you are too gutless to come out into the light of day, I am not sure you have the right to comment on “our” culture.

              1. He or she has every right to comment.

                As for being ‘gutless’? Don’t make me laugh.

            2. Did you see Paul C Schulte’s comment about putting something in his will, so that the blog is notified when he dies? Loons.

              1. Anonymous – what you didn’t see was that some people were concerned that I had gone “missing” for awhile and I had joking said I would make a change to my will. You may have missed another post where someone has listed the people who cannot die before they do. 😉 Anonymous was not one of them. 🙁

            3. I just check in before work and at lunch to check on the mutants. Caught between a couple projects. I bet the Professor has dinner parties where he and guests check the blog for entertainment purposes.

              You obviously read all the posts. So, like, you got me all lol about you, Nameless.

              1. Actually, I don’t “read all the posts.” And I’ve got no beef with you Paulie J. But hey, laugh all you want. It’s good for your health.

                1. Likewise. And everything not laughing is just a way to pass time until laughing maniacally the next time. I concur. Ha.

              2. “I just check in before work and at lunch to check on the mutants.”

                Anon under Paulie might just check at those times but activity from him flows through multiple aliases.

                1. Actually no. I can’t check in with other names I’ve had because they’re blocked for dropping f bombs as adjectives.

                  If i did have multiple aliases one would be Alon Alon Alon.

                  1. Anon, as I said you have been abusive and have little self control. You aren’t quite as bad as Anonymous the Stupid because you seem to be able to put two sentences together. If you added a bit of logic and the basic idea of proof you might even be able to make an argument that could be appreciated.

                    My suggestion. Try harder.

            4. So says the pathetic one that roams the place and is afraid of having his own alias. Makes you sound the most pitifull.

            5. Once again, I am honored yet humbled and certainly not worthy of such high billing on a list, clearly, of my superiors.

          2. I am just a humble old white guy, just another peasant from flyover, it’s true. I do have a job i do at my desk, and I type these small words to keep myself awake from my otherwise plodding and boring tasks. don’t be deceived by the volume, I type fast and have no sockpuppets here.

            if you find value in my remarks, good, if you dont like them, please ignore and have a nice day

          3. That is why you are here monitoring what everyone says. I’m happy with my life and what I have. You obviously are not.

  5. There is a marked difference between criticism and intimidation. What Schumer did was blatant intimidation. Sadly Chief Justice Roberts has proven susceptible to intimidation so this tactic will not stop until the Senate stops it by progressive discipline.

    A censure is a good place to start. If Schumer does not apologize from the well of the Senate, he should face an overwhelming censure vote. Sadly it won’t happen because of the panty waists on both sides.


    New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind:

    “If the Senator was genuinely concerned about confronting hate and anti-Semitism, he wouldn’t have given President Obama a pass when the Obama administration did everything possible to marginalize Israel,” continued Hikind. “Where was Schumer when Linda Sarsour showed support for terrorists and undermined the existence of Israel? Or when Black Lives Matter adopted anti-Israel platforms? Has the Senator held press conferences confronting the racist BDS movement, which seeks to isolate and starve innocent Israelis?” asked Hikind.

    “The best candidate who Senator Schumer saw fit to lead the DNC was Keith Ellison, a friend of Louis Farrakhan who called Hitler ‘a great man’,” continued the assemblyman.

    “The Orthodox community does not need to be lectured by Senator Schumer. Let the good Senator work on alleviating anti-Israel animus within segments of the Democratic party. Because, as we all know, anti-Israel rhetoric and ‘anti-Zionism’ is simply the 21st-century version of anti-Semitism.”

  7. The DNC talking points on this are, “But where was Roberts when Trump said Ginsberg and Soomayor should recuse themselves???” The DNC shills will pretend they do not see the threatening speech in Schumer’s tirade. And they will impute a “threat” into Trump’s speech.

    It is an old lawyers’ technique called “blurring the distinction.” It won’t fool anybody with half a brain or more.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. What has happened to the Democrat Party?

      Truly vile people now claim to be Democrats-Talib, Omar, Pelosi, AOC, Nadler, Schumer, Watters, Schiff to name just a few.

      They spend their time and our money constantly criticizing Americans, our Constitution and Greedy Capitalists while they get rich for doing nothing but bullsjht

  8. “I want to tell you, Chuck Schumer. 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.

    Chuck Schumer’s home address is:

    9 Prospect Park West
    Brooklyn, NY

    whirlwind indeed.

    1. “9 Prospect Park West
      Brooklyn, NY”

      It would be helpful to have the apartment number. After searching NYC property records, they are not listed by the name of the owner but only specific address.

      Schumer deserves everything he has dished out to others in spades

      1. Ah, the hypocrites are out in full force this morning. And I’m not a Chuck S. fan.

  9. I didn’t interpret Schumer’s words as a threat. Just hot air, political rhetoric. And SCOTUS has already chosen to inject itself into the political sphere, most notably by the words of RGB and Satomayor. Roberts needs to get his own house in order before trying to muzzle the free speech of others.

    1. I didn’t interpret Schumer’s words as a threat. Just hot air, political rhetoric.

      Well, think again. And ask Steve Scalise how he’s doing.

      1. You made his point. Politics inspires passion and heated rhetoric. And on extremely rare occasions, some nut will react violently. But politicians accept that risk. If the Supreme Court wants to be neutral, scholarly and above politics, then stay the hell out of politics. With a truly non-political SCOTUS, abortion would be firmly settled law. Not something that every time there’s a change in the membership of the Court, huge crowds gather thinking that the new guy/gal who shares their political and/or religious views will now either uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the Court itself is flakey and open to political persuasion, I have no problem with Schumer or anyone else making use of the situation that SCOTUS itself created.

        1. If the Supreme Court wants to be neutral, scholarly and above politics, then stay the hell out of politics. With a truly non-political SCOTUS, abortion would be firmly settled law.

          No, if we had a non-political Supreme Court, there would be no federal intervention in the states’ exercise of their general police power in this matter. No federal statutory law and no case law.

        2. You made his point.

          I made no one’s point but my own. Schumer didn’t critique the jurisprudence of any member of the Court. He threatened two of them by name. This is not that difficult to understand, but you’re bound and determined not to.

        3. If the Supreme Court wants to be neutral, scholarly and above politics, then stay the hell out of politics.

          Excellent. So the Robert’s court should overturn Roe v Wade and restore this political football back to the political world from where it came.

          I appreciate your support in this matter.

    2. Free speech indeed. Lets publish your address so a whirlwind can fall on you! Why not??

    3. Of course you don’t. But then I think you should be muzzled! Hey, I am just spinning the schumer.

    4. Robert is not muzzling speech when he uses his own speech to criticize Shumer

      Roberts did not write a new law to make Chuck shut up. See below, Brandenberg V Ohio.

      The existing precedents for the wide range of free speech are secure. Chuck’s inflammatory words were well within what is lawful. It’s actually a line a lot farther down the road than people realize.

      For example, a person could say something like

      “someone in New York should hang Chuck Shumer by the neck until his neck is broken, his face turns purple, his eyes bulge out, he defecates himself, and heart stops beating”

      and that would be lawful free speech. . because, it is not directed at inciting imminent lawless action, and it is not likely to incite such action, to use the formulation of Brandenberg v Ohio.

      I, like Chuck Shumer, am just “blowing off steam!”

      See Brandenberg V Ohio, 1969

      “The Court’s Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.”

  10. Given Schumer’s remarks I find it even easier to believe that the Deep State felt entitled to quietly coerce Roberts into changing his opinion on Obamacare. Schumer seems willing enough but his mistake was being open enough to bring a public rebuke. The Deep State is happy being rotten; but they don’t like the pus to show.

  11. Seems like this a ‘both and’ situation. Best for Chuck to restrain the rhetoric. The Court to stop the activism around Roe v. Wade.

    1. ” The Court to stop the activism around Roe v. Wade.”

      Forgotten is that each state was determining per the Constitution its own abortion laws. Abortion was not a federal issue unless one wanted to consider the protection of a human life. The court’s activism started when they decided to hear Roe Vs Wade and provided a decision.

      1. None of that is forgotten. In fact, people remember individual state law and that’s why Roe vs. Wade came about.

        1. State Law??? Right you are, as far as that goes. That was in the 60’s. So was not equal credit! But attitudes change. Apparently yours has not.

          1. Nothing like women dying needlessly to keep memory in check. And attitudes cognizant. No apologies for that all.

            1. My great-aunt died from an illegal abortion at age 24. They were legal immigrants from Scandinavia living in abject poverty in No. Minn. They struggled to feed themselves and couldn’t feed another child. After she died, the girls were given to relatives. My great-grandmother was pulled from school in 4th grade to become a baby-sitter for a local family. The boys were put up for adoption so we lost track of them.

              1. Truly sorry about your experience! Oh my god, that’s awful.

                And that’s why I really, really, really admire the work my mom did with women (and families) faced with similar circumstances.

                1. Thank you. Yes, it’s a lot different when you know real people impacted by this, and it’s not just some legal abstraction. I recall also a news story when I lived in San Fran. A young homeless woman sought an abortion and was encouraged to give birth; offered free medical at St. Mary’s Hospital. The day after delivering her baby girl, mom and infant were put out on the street. With nowhere to go, they slept in some seedy doorway in the Tenderloin on a cold January night. When she woke up the next morning, the new mom found that her infant had died during the night from hypothermia. So congratulations anti-abortionists! You succeeded in bringing a new baby into this world that you didn’t give a sh!t about once it was born, and left it to die in a freezing, urine stained doorway. And the 19-year-old mother will be scarred for life due to your caring and concern. Hypocritical A- holes.

                  1. here’s an interesting documentary about the PRC’s one child policy which was intended to redress the problem of feeding a massive surplus population and preventing another Great Famine which resulted in tens of millions starving to death

                    it was an ugly policy in practice, however.

                    and rather than run my mouth off too much about it, although i probably have already; but if you are really interested in the topic, let the Chinese women and midwives speak for themselves. in this documentary they express diverse opinions.

                    and keep in mind, almost none of these people are Christians.


                    watch the whole thing, it’s incredible. just 15 minutes is not enough, watch the whole thing to do this work justice.

                  2. Tin, it is not just a matter of “anti-abortionists!”. There are many problems that surround the issue. The first one to come to mind is the law and the Constitution.

              2. Sorry TIN, that’s a sad story. Too bad she didn’t choose to put the child up for adoption instead. A decision that should have been considered prior to running the risk of getting pregnant again. It’s all about choices, right?

                1. It’s all about time and place. Back then, with no effective birth control, many families had more children than they wanted and weren’t about to adopt another. The demand for adopting children is fairly recent, and a result of many factors, primarily economic. With our increased population, housing has become hugely expensive relative to wages. When I was growing up, a blue-collar wage earner could support a wife and 5 children, and live in a middle-class neighborhood. A buddy’s father was on the SF Fire Dept, had 4 kids and a non-working wife, but could afford to send them all to Catholic schools and live in a middle-class SF neighborhood. That same house is now worth well over $1 million and would require a two-professional couple to afford. So economic factors pushed women to pursue professional education and careers well into their thirties and have fewer children, or found themselves unable to conceive. It caused a great demand for adopting white babies. But anyone who wants to adopt a black baby, there is a surplus and few takers. But again, that’s relatively recent. The CA population is 4X what it was when I was growing up, and the price of housing is out of reach of most. My two nieces are both young professionals, a lawyer and a CPA. One just bought her first home, a very modest fixer, which she and her husband, who has a Master’s in computer sci. were able to afford. I really hope they have children, but so far, they’re just trying to get a foothold into the middle-class.

                  1. It’s all about time and place…Back then, with no effective birth control,..The demand for adopting children is fairly recent,…But again, that’s relatively recent.

                    I agree TIN, the arguments to support abortion may have had their day, but advances in medicine and the demand for adoption have rendered them moot.

                  2. The demand for adopting children is fairly recent,

                    I have no clue where you come by these social fictions.

        2. In fact, people remember individual state law and that’s why Roe vs. Wade came about.

          Actually, no. It came about because Mr. Justice Blackmun was being harried by his daughters. It had nothing to do with popular preference.

          1. It’s clear that you don’t like, respect or understand women. Your mother must have been a trans-woman.

            1. Derek C – can you look me in the eye and say with a straight face that you understand women? 😉

            2. It’s clear that you don’t like, respect or understand women.

              No, it’s clear I don’t stick them on pedestals and evaluate them with just enough asperity to bother the world’s witless White Knights.

              Your mother must have been a trans-woman.

              No. About 1/2 the distance between Barbara Bush and a suburban real estate agent. She had a husband, four children, and many friends.

        3. Anon, Your emotions leave your common sense behind.

          Emotions led people to the Nazi Party in Germany.

    2. What is activism? Everything can be interpreted as activism given whichever “side” you are on. The case before the Supremes has merit. Should an abortion doctor be licensed at the nearest hospital to his abortion clinic. Currently in Alabama, only one abortion doctor is licensed at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. This has risen to the doctor’s being sub standard who are performing the abortions. Would you want a doctor performing an abortion on your lived one who doesn’t meet the standard of having licensure at the local hospital? Try reading before you jump to the demise of Roe v Wade which was political activism in steroids.

      1. Would you want a doctor performing an abortion on your lived (sic) one who doesn’t meet the standard of having licensure at the local hospital?

        A doctor performing an abortion results in a dead one, not a lived one

        That’s how crass pro-abortionists are: life is meaningless to them

        1. “That’s how crass pro-abortionists are: life is meaningless to them”

          Quite the opposite actually. That’s okay, there’s time for you to live and learn.

      2. I’ll tell you what “side” I’m on. The one that recognizes abortion is a public health and women’s right to choose issue. My mom worked in a hospital in Ohio pre Roe vs. Wade and when a young woman would get on their radar who would likely seek one out, staff would pool together their own money to take her to NY for a safe abortion because if they didn’t the woman would likely end up back on their doorstep with a raging infection from getting a shoddy abortion in Indianapolis or Cincinnati.

        Not to mention, they were watching out for their sisters who weren’t so fortunate. Loving their neighbor as themselves. Being their sister’s keeper. You know, trivial stuff like that.

        Throwing things to the states equals this: women of financial means travel to where they can get a safe abortion. Women who aren’t are bound by their financial circumstances. Period.

        See, if one wants to live by the revised anti abortion Christian principles, that’s awesome. But that’s their choice. Not their job to enforce their beliefs on everyone around them. Taking out Roe vs. Wade and sending it to the states puts things right back where they were back in the bad old days.

        Ridiculous this is even discussed with a straight face these days. Pretty much every woman I know has been faced with having to have at least one.

        1. And now, abortion has become the birth control method of choice! If the so-called Woman’s health clinic were to give out real birth control, instead of abortion control, wouldn’t this be a much smaller issue? But no, there are larger forces at work here – to demean the stature of Women. Just check who funds these clinics and you will find out who they are. I can’t imagine a woman, after having had an abortion, having no regrets, even if they are little ones.

          1. Aha. You read lack of regret into my comments. Didn’t say that at all. You and me, as males, discussing this subject is kind of beyond laughable…but having regrets absolutely goes with the territory, no matter the causative circumstances. Roe vs. Wade is good law. Let it be. Rage about it on a blog. But best to let others live their lives as they see fit on matters such as these.

            1. it is not laughable

              men have a valid legal and biological and social interest in their unborn children

              1. Who do you suppose knocked-up Gainesville’s wife lo those many years ago?

              2. And if men show interest women are generally amazingly capable of working with that….

                However when you try to force your rights above those of others it gets problematic..

                It’s the woman’s choice, bud. Bottom line. It’s a chicken vs. egg commitment issue.

            2. You and me, as males, discussing this subject is kind of beyond laughable…

              I’m a native citizen and a taxpayer, so I will discuss the contents of the penal code whenever I please. A properly composed penal code makes it a felony to dismember an unborn child or soak it in caustic brine.

                1. And you’ll look and sound like a man whose pilfered from his dentist’s supply.

              1. And you’re making a real difference hanging out on a blog. It’s…well…, beyond “absurd.”

                1. Just having lunch, being entertained by the great unwashed. Good times.

                2. Has the staff changed your Depends this afternoon, Diane?

                  1. The staff? LOL.

                    My name isn’t “Diane.” And I certainly don’t wear depends. You?

          2. “the birth control method of choice!”

            Bob, maybe that was Anon’s intention. Maybe he wanted to increase the numbers killed rather than save lives. He frequently gets things backward.

        2. What I will now say is crude and perhaps immoral. Or perhaps we are beyond that now.

          But the potential silver lining of abortion is mostly used by Democrats on their unborn children. Hence, their own policy self-limits their future pool of voters.

          Republicans should think about that. This is ugly business but it is a situation of low intensity conflict and potentially hotter civil war.

          1. Yeah, truly tasteless.. I’ll give you that. But I recommend that book FREAKONOMICS from awhile back. Takes a look at unusual correlations. One of the best? Murder rate started tailing down at the same time Roe vs. Wade took effect.

            And don’t be fooled…, just because ‘conservative’ woman don’t tell you they’re getting an abortion doesn’t mean they’re not getting them.

            1. I’ll give you that. But I recommend that book FREAKONOMICS

              The thesis of which has been discredited multiple times.

              Amusing how leftoids advocate the crudest sort of eugenics.

              1. Actually it’s not a pure causative so therefore can’t be discredited except in the minds who are biased to begin with.

                Amazing how rightest mutants will drop their libertarian “beliefs” at the drop of a hat when it comes to women having a say about their own bodies and health.

            2. there is no question that a larger surplus population of the lumpenproletariat will cause more problems of all kinds.

              the curtailment of the excess population of those whom Mr Clinton referred to as “super predators” is a silver lining

              of course under a renewed federalism allowing state by state regulartion, it would probably continue to be totally legal in the blue states anyhow

              1. Kurtz, you expose yourself as a one trick pony, defaulting rather quickly to dystopian visions of civil war and ridding yourself of those who don’t agree. Not entirely an endearing trait. Darkly comic though.

                1. Paulie, I suspect you already knew that dystopian expectations of increased social conflict was my tendency.

                  I don’t really care what people think, but i do care what they do.

                  Most of what people do, is not affected by thinking of course, it’s the net result of biology which puts subconscious mental processes in charge of most decisions that people fancy are the result of “thinking.” Thinking is usually just “an afterthought”

                  Another reality that’s untouched by either side, is that abortion on demand is here in the form of easily obtained hormonal pills, available through the mail via the internet. Good luck trying to make that illegal. It’s here to stay.

                  This is how technology emerges and takes control of us like a big Frankenstein over and over again.


                  cell phones for example. you think its a tool that you use? no, its a tool that uses you!

              2. Any female with a credit card who wants an abortion will get one. She will go to another state, to another country, or wherever. My mom told me that in the 50s and 60s, before Roe v. Wade, that mothers took their pregnant teen daughters down to Tijuana, where quick and cheap abortion clinics served American women. It’s the impoverished, the ghetto welfare recipients, the white-trash opioid addicts, the crack-heads, the diseased prostitutes and the homeless women who will be birthing a new generation of mentally defective super-predators is abortion is outlawed. And the most violent, low-IQ of these future predators will largely inhabit cities like Washington D.C., roaming the streets and subways and looking for victims. Maybe that’s the blow-back Schumer was talking about.

                1. Very well could be. But don’t be fooled, women from every demographic need abortions. The star athlete who gets date raped at a party. The young corporate woman who…well, gets date raped. I’m noticing a them here…

                  1. Yes let all those career minded women who don’t want families crape their uteruses too. they don’t deserve kids. again, they’re probably genetic defectives because they are too selfish anyways. No matter how smart you are, if you are not willing to sacrifice for a future generation, then you don’t deserve to leave your DNA fingerprint on humanity. That’s how i see it now.

                    So all that whining about ERA could just be stopped if they would all sterilize themselves at the outset of their careers, then poof! no problem with delays due to childbearing. Wages vis a vis men would equalize all that much faster.

                    see a lot of problems for the Left can perhaps remedy if the Left would aggressively sterilize its own women. For example, this would help with global warming, too! Less CO2 emissions from feminists. I’m all for it. Lower your carbon footprint!

                    1. Ha! Added more than your share of carbon this afternoon as well. Hope you’re growing ganja in the near vicinity. It’ll love it. But those feminists…, they’ll be around. What would you do without them?

                2. My mom told me that in the 50s and 60s, before Roe v. Wade, that mothers took their pregnant teen daughters down to Tijuana,

                  Your mom also told you about Santa Claus too. Big whoop.

                  (That you can find an example of a social phenomenon does not establish the commonality of it. (See, for example, the Reno divorce, with which Clare Booth Luce had great sport in The Women. Sociologists of the family who studied the question discovered that migratory divorces accounted for fewer than 5% of all dissolution proceedings).

        3. Women are forcing the needle on their unborn children and the fathers have no choice in the matter. That’s wrong and you don’t have to be a Christian to give men their due.

          There’s many arguable points about the abortion debate that may weigh in favor of pro choice side. I have become less “pro life” as I get older. But I can’t countenance the utter lack of concern the pro choicers have to the other side of an unborn child’s parenting. It disgusts me, as a man, and yes i am a man and proud to be one

          1. Exactly why I say if those Christian principles are yours, fully live them and keep them. But don’t shove them up the butt of what is truly a public health and women’s rights issue.

            1. I am beyond Christian ethics when it comes to these questions. This is strictly a question of will to power now. Precisely why I am totally ok and fine for abortion to stay legal. indeed, I favor it for my adversaries.

              We should have a government sponsored sterilization program too, in exchange for public benefits, perhaps. We should consider paying illegal immigrants to permanently self-deport, too, maybe.

              Perhaps God will damn me for my hard heart, but, I am convinced that he could care less what we think of him. This is the world in which we live, and we did not ask to be placed here. Reality is, the sun could just have an unexpected belch, and roast us all in a solar flare overnight.


              So I say, let the conservative justices refine the excesses and problems of Roe V Wade, but have no fear of abortion staying legal. That favors us more than them.

              1. Mr Kurtz – I am in agreement that any woman on welfare be required to have a birth control implant. I would say the same for men but there does not seem to be one yet. This would include their female children.

                1. if we are committed to birth control as a nation and it sees we are, like it or not, perhaps we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by going down to where they collect unpaid child support, and picking these guys that are always too be seen there in cornrows and baggy pants, who often have about 5 different baby mamas, and giving them free vasectomies. i recommend it, actually.,

                  it just so happens i find myself alongside that local office from time to time and it might as well be the same pack of prolific miscreants there all the time, with that baggy pants thing going on.

                  sterilize them. get planned parenthood on the task for all I care. give them lots of extra money if they can get it done.

                  1. In 2018, there were 3.8 million live births in this country.

                    4.3% were the 4th or higher birth to a white woman
                    3.8% were the 4th or higher birth to a hispanic woman
                    2.6% were the 4th or higher birth to a black woman

                    And, of course, some of these are fecund married couples. This problem is taking up too much rent-free space in your head.

                    1. More actual Americans die than are born. The fertility rate in a “death spiral.” The U.S. population is imported. In the future, there won’t be any Americans left in America. Extrapolate. Americans will have been “fundamentally transformed” out of America and into extinction.

                  2. Mr Kurtz – I found out while I was teaching that they do not consider themselves men until they get a girl pregnant. They would never voluntarily be snipped. However, the welfare system prevents them from being in the house so they have to duck out during welfare checks. They system needs to be fixed.

                2. Mr Kurtz – I am in agreement that any woman on welfare be required to have a birth control implant. I

                  The average TANF household has 1.76 children resident therein. Your idea is not a response to current conditions.

                  Why not just replace TANF with a set of tax rebates which function as matching funds for earned income?

                  What you’re advocated is creepy-intrusive.

        1. Was there a law passed by Congress legalizing abortion?


          That’s how it could have happened, and one day maybe you guys will man up and say, should have

          But you imposed this on the entire nation via judicial fiat not law

          Don’t be surprised if judges repeal or delimit their own judge-made law. That’s how the cookie crumbles.

          1. Actually, here’s how the cookie really crumbles. Roe vs. Wade is good law. You don’t like it. So what? Deal with it. Don’t try to force women to see it your way.

            1. i have a problem with the legal theory behind roe, and giving this class of plaintiffs special substantive due process standing. i respect our system of law and roe is an aberration and an outlier in many ways, from the perspective of constitutional law.

              However, I don’t really have a problem with the outcome. let these selfish women snuff out these unborn children, it’s probably an act of mercy, since they would tend to be awful mothers anyhow. and it mostly limits the pool of future Democrat voters who are inclined to try and gang up on the rest of us.

              I realize this is possibly immoral talk, but, I’m feeling rather realistic today.

              1. Rage about it realistically on a blog then. But realize, the issue only minimally concerns you.

                1. You don’t know what concerns me or doesn’t.

                  I could be a person whose ex wife snuffed out one of our children before it was born. Maybe because her overweening liberal mother pressured her to do it. Let’s just say for the sake of argument. But let’s just say for the sake of argument, maybe it was another guy’s embryo, since she might have been a drunk and a cheater. So just as well.

                  What’s lucky I guess, and not arguendo, is that I do have kids, who made it to the realm of the living, and still are here, and doing well. For now.

                  So I’m ok if people who like to get piercings and dye their hair purple want to get abortions. Good, let them be sterilized too while they’re at it. I’m thinking of the best interests of the children I have and we are in a demographic war like it or not. Fewer of the kinds of black clad antifa looking like freaks one sees yelling at pro choice rallies perhaps? Good, that would be fantastic. Let them have totally free and legal abortion in California and New York, I think it’s going to help the good people even the score.

                  1. So I’ll leave you to do the good work of the good people then. Cool with me. Peace.

              2. Affirmative Action is far more of a direct assault on the Constitution than Roe v. Wade will ever be. Yet SCOTUS somehow finds that the framers intended racial preferences in college admissions and employment, as well as forced busing. That’s a total farce intended to appease political constituencies. And it totally undermines the credibility of the Court as anything more than a political body; at least since the 1960s when it became little more than a tool of social engineers and politicians.

      3. What is activism? Everything can be interpreted as activism given whichever “side” you are on.

        No it cannot. A superordinate principle is to be found in the text or it isn’t. There wasn’t anything remotely resembling one when Roe and Doe were issued.

  12. Chucky boy Schumer sitting in a tree.
    P I s s I n g.
    First comes shove.
    Then come shoot.
    Out come the Redcoats ready to boot.

    Goodbye Chucky boy…
    Rocky Mount U S A.

  13. The Democrats have made Trump’s attack on the judiciary into a major political issue going into the 2020 election. I have agreed with that criticism of President Trump. However, they are comparatively quiet in the face of these threats from Schumer.

    Trump’s ‘attacks’ do not include threats against the judges. Attacks on the Court are perfectly legitimate. Inciting someone from the James T. Hodgkinson wing of the Democratic Party to put a bullet in Messrs Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (or from the Glenn Simpson wing to put defamatory material out on the internet or from the Letitia James wing to start suing them) is not. This is not that difficult.

  14. Besides “Crying Chuck”, now thanks to you he can be called “Stalking Chuck”.Good job JT!

  15. Coming from Roberts who hasn’t lectured a President who has threatened violence against other government officials and political leaders. Remember Trump’s threat of Second Amendment relations against Hillary if she wan elected! What hypocrisy.

    1. Remember Trump’s threat of Second Amendment relations against Hillary if she wan elected!

      No one remembers your personal fantasies. Only you remember them.

  16. The Dems like to present themselves as principled defenders of democracy; in truth, they are amoral and cynical political players.

    Watch the libs who comment twist themselves into knots with their “But Trump did it too”, and “Schumer wasn’t that bad.”

    They can lie to themselves, but they aren’t going to convince many people.

    1. Schumer seems to forget that there are three branches of government. His comrades in the Senate, like Sen. Whitehouse, want to forever change the size and shape of the Supreme Court, to become “more” not “less” political. Trump’s appointees, will rule on the facts and the law, while Schumer and his comrades, want just the opposite. Schumer has shown himself to be unworthy to be a Senator, and should resign immediately, for the good of our country. You cannot put this genie back in the bottle.

    2. The Truth is that so called Conservatives like Roberts are craftsmen at hypocrisy.

      1. JH:

        That is obviously your opinion, which is similar to Schumer’s.

        So that justifies threats, intimidation and an overthrow of our democratic mores?

        You just reinforced my point – either you stand for democratic values or you are a hypocrite.

        1. “you are a hypocrite”

          it is their badge of honor.

          When Truth loses respect, words mean nothing. Justice H and his TDS anarchists have no qualms about destroying people. Theirs is about raw power at the expense of those who get in their way.

          we should deal with them like they do to us beforehand. Without mercy

    1. As someone who seems unfazed with whatever the Democrats say or do, but gets very hot under the collar when Pres. Trump does or says anything, even if good for the country, everyone expected this comment from you.

    2. It’s not what Schumer would do. It’s the crazies that hear stuff like this and do something. Remember the Bernie Bro that shot up a baseball field?

Comments are closed.