When is Enough ,Enough?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Where was your outrage when Moscow mitch held up the SC nominees of Obama??? You're a hypocrite chico.

holding up a nomination (not with a gun) is not the same as verbal threats against specific Justices.

Hard to know where lines are drawn nowadays (on both sides)

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So what was everyone's take on Schumer's speech

imo Schumer was wrong to single out any SCOTUS justice.

Justice Roberts, from what ive seen, I like him. Clarence Thomas imo shouldnt be on the bench, he will twist facts ro interpretation of law to fit whatever predetermined super conservative view he wants. He would vote to over turn Roe v Wade and throw precedent out the window just so his version of America is the only version of America. I think Sotomayor may be his polar equivalent. And equally not qualified imo but she doesnt have a track record yet to judge.

This isnt the first time he has had to respond another branch. I remember he made a public statement in response to trump saying there are Obama justices and Trump justices and Roberts said the SCOTUS is neutral and party bias and there are no trump or Obama judges.

If we are going to discuss Schumer's comments ... I think its fair to ask if you discussed or questioned trump and republican comments re the SCOTUS as well. if you didnt then ... can you honestly do it now and claim objectiveness?

--------------------

McConnell has driven Congress off the cliff and civility and fair play will never come back. For him to hold up the vetting of Garland was .. the last fatal blow.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

Now any party can just move the goal post farther back ... if a Republican president nominates a justice for the SCOTUS 2 years before elections ... but Dems hold the Senate, why should they act on it vs just sitting on it.

We were probably already heading down the road of severe partinship but McConnell fast tracked it.

And dont give me the "but the biden rule" crap. Thats a complete strawman and any competent and semi objective person cant argue that with a straight face.

Blue slips - McConnell also killed that. he weaponized the Senate to be the working agent for the Executive branch.

I really dont want to hear any Republicans scream about how the AG or DOJ are supposed to be neutral or how Congress is supposed to be an independent branch and not work exclusively under the direction of the President.

20 years from now .. Texas will be blue, florida will be blue, arizona etc plus the Senate and POTUS will be a Dem ... and you can thank McConnell for single handily removing the checks and balances that existed for over 200 years.

Enjoy it now ... just remember that you were okay with all of this while it was trump and republicans doing it .... but im sure many republicans will be screaming bloody murder 20 years from now.

edit --- and a super extreme left view equally scares me the same as a super right view

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So what was everyone's take on Schumer's speech

Funny how suddenly words actually can be more than just words.....
I believe this is where I am supposed to say get over it snowflakes or something like that. Oh the freaking hypocrisy of you and Chico to overlook all the threatening language Trump has used for years now about folks in the media, muslims, democrats, i mean you can just read his Twitter feed because the list goes on and on and on, and than get rattled by Schumer. Absolutely unreal.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Funny how suddenly words actually can be more than just words.....
I believe this is where I am supposed to say get over it snowflakes or something like that. Oh the freaking hypocrisy of you and Chico to overlook all the threatening language Trump has used for years now about folks in the media, muslims, democrats, i mean you can just read his Twitter feed because the list goes on and on and on, and than get rattled by Schumer. Absolutely unreal.

I thought threatening unelected Justices would be something we all agreed was wrong.

and to respond to the tweet in the next one, saying a politician has a price to pay, that makes sense to be a political election. Saying a justice, that has no political election in their future, has a price to pay, is much more ominous.

Finally, I have criticized ad nauseaum Trump's tweets, maybe not here but I don't defend him for being a whiny crybaby, and yes it affects the dialog in this country, but this was a specific over the line statement by Schumer, who has his own litany of crybaby moments. And Yes I thought naively, that everyone here would say his statements were outright wrong.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I thought threatening unelected Justices would be something we all agreed was wrong.



and to respond to the tweet in the next one, saying a politician has a price to pay, that makes sense to be a political election. Saying a justice, that has no political election in their future, has a price to pay, is much more ominous.



Finally, I have criticized ad nauseaum Trump's tweets, maybe not here but I don't defend him for being a whiny crybaby, and yes it affects the dialog in this country, but this was a specific over the line statement by Schumer, who has his own litany of crybaby moments. And Yes I thought naively, that everyone here would say his statements were outright wrong.

I do agree. I just think it is insanely hypocritical for the right to be up in arms over it after years of Trump inciting violence and sewing discourse with words and tweets including literally telling his supporters to punch protesters in the face at a rally while all along telling the left that words don’t mean anything.

[mooby]

For the record I disagree with Schumer's choice of words. But I don't see what he said as anything worse than the constant barrage of attacks on judges from Trump.

[punch it in]

For starters,


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!

146K
8:20 AM - Jan 26, 2020

I know, I know. This is different because Obama made him do it or some stupid shit.

[punch it in]

This is going to be fun......


Trump had just demanded to know who provided a whistleblower with information about his call with the Ukrainian president, describing that person as “close to a spy” and adding: “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.”

Remember that one?

[punch it in]

Trump - Schiff will pay!
Right - its only words

Schumer - Justices will pay!
Right - he’s got a gun!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Trump - Schiff will pay!
Right - its only words

Schumer - Justices will pay!
Right - he’s got a gun!

complete BS equivalency. Just BS and completely a bad faith argument. Its quite humorous for liberals now want threatening SC to be in scope.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

complete BS equivalency. Just BS and completely a bad faith argument. Its quite humorous for liberals now want threatening SC to be in scope.

No. What is quite humorous now is for the party of Trump to get up in arms about how words have consequences. Read my second post there Chico and tell me that you all haven’t merely scoffed at all of Trumps threatening rhetoric. And what’s worse is his sheep worship him to the point of action. I sincerely doubt the justices are getting death threats the way every left wing media personality, Schumer, Pelosi, or basically anyone who disagrees with Trump have. HE FUCKIN ASKED A ROOM FULL OF HIS SHEEP TO KNOCK OUT PROTESTERS AT A RALLY!!!!!! Where was your outrage then, or do we only care when it is a Supreme Court justice??

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

complete BS equivalency. Just BS and completely a bad faith argument. Its quite humorous for liberals now want threatening SC to be in scope.

LOL you really think a high-ranking senator and one of the top leaders of the Democratic party is really a threat to carry out an act of violence against a Supreme Court judge huh?

DEFCON 5 right now! No judge travels alone!!!!

It was a poor choice of words of Schumer and I don't blame Roberts' reaction. But implying it's a threat on the same level as an extremist sending a threatening letter is nonsense.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

complete BS equivalency. Just BS and completely a bad faith argument. Its quite humorous for RIGHT WING NUTS now want threatening SC to be in scope.

Corrected for honesty ,........see how that works chico? Trump did go after a couple of Judges himself .

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...attacks-courts

[SunnySide]

Schumer's words to the SCOTUS were more pointed vs what Trump has said about the SCOTUS. Schumer's words were more of an "attack" but I find the POTUS trying to dictate bias and instructions to "his judges" vs "obamas judges" far more detrimental to the 3 branches checks and balances than what the Senate minority leader said at a rally. Both times, Justice Roberts had to give a rare public rebuke in an effort to maintain the perception of neutrality and sovereignty from the other 2 branches.

Schumer apologized.

Schumer's words were not an actual call for threats of violence to the SCOTUS. Like Moody said, you cant brush aside Trumps many attacking remarks as just words but then claim with a straight face Schumer's words were a call to incite violence. I dont think anyone here is saying that but Rs and Fox News are.

Congress and the office of the POTUS can bicker and name call all they want (its only getting worse and worse) ... but leave the SCOTUS out of it. Having the SCOTUS issuing public rebukes is rare, i cant remember it ever happening, and should not become the new norm.

[SunnySide]

Narrow view of just comments to the SCOTUS, Schumers words were more "attacking" but taking into the weight of the speaker, a sitting POTUS comments re wanting favorable treatment from his judges is more damaging then loose words from the Senate minority leader at a rally.

Broad view - Trump has used much worse, much more inciteful language so for anyone to try and claim Schumer's words are threats of violence ... it makes that person seem hallow and untruthful with actual honest discourse.