When is Enough ,Enough?

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by mooby

My beef is with the Chief Justice calling out Schumer (as is his right when he feels the court is being attacked unfairly).

Where's the beef when Trump insults RBG, Sotomayer, the judge on the Stone/etc. trials, or literally any other judiciary exec Trump has attacked over the years? How about the mexican judge Trump thinks is biased due to his nationality?

Partisanship has invaded the judiciary, this is the world we live in now. Either you have a problem with all of it or you are a part of the problem as well.

Your calling this an attack on them. That's a stretch.

“It’s very obvious,” Trump said at a news conference in India, where he was wrapping up a 36-hour trip. “Justice Ginsburg should [recuse herself] because she went wild during the campaign when I was running."

"Perhaps she was for Hillary Clinton,” Trump said.

“I just don’t know how they cannot recuse themselves from anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related,” the president said. He said Sotomayor – who was appointed by President Barack Obama – is “trying to shame people with perhaps a different 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.

[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?

[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]

Trump - Schiff will pay!
Right - its only words

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

[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.

[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.

[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??

[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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again another BS equivalency and you throw in a personnel attack anybody disagreeing is moral low ground, therefore cant hold an opinion unless its in-line. Easy to see and point out...but this is the elitist-tone Obama ploy which essential got Trump elected.

Look, Schumer 1000% in the wrong. Trump has to personally attack individual justices for the equivalency. Simply do this, Mitch same speech about Gun Control being argued Supreme Court, and have him use the same language towards invoking name of 2 liberal justices. Then ask yourself, is that ok?

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Again another BS equivalency and you throw in a personnel attack anybody disagreeing is moral low ground, therefore cant hold an opinion unless its in-line. Easy to see and point out...but this is the elitist-tone Obama ploy which essential got Trump elected.

Look, Schumer 1000% in the wrong. Trump has to personally attack individual justices for the equivalency. Simply do this, Mitch same speech about Gun Control being argued Supreme Court, and have him use the same language towards invoking name of 2 liberal justices. Then ask yourself, is that ok?

Theres 2 discussion/thoughts going on.

1 - what Schumer said to the 2 justices of the SCOTUS. Clearly wrong, he admitted it was wrong.

2 - what republicans are saying about what schumer said. Here, Rs claiming it is an actual call for violence are coming off as hallow shills bc they do dismiss Trumps direct words calling for violence as just words and campaign rally speech but here act like Schumer's words are a direct call for violence.

Rs are correct on 1 and not on 2 imo.

To answer your hypothetical ... no, I would not be okay with Mitch singeling out 2 liberal justices .... just as i am not okay w schumer singeling out 2 justices here.

I can admit when my party puts their foot in their mouth.

Can you?

(rhetorical .. i dont need an answer)

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Theres 2 discussion/thoughts going on.

1 - what Schumer said to the 2 justices of the SCOTUS. Clearly wrong, he admitted it was wrong.

2 - what republicans are saying about what schumer said. Here, Rs claiming it is an actual call for violence are coming off as hallow shills bc they do dismiss Trumps direct words calling for violence as just words and campaign rally speech but here act like Schumer's words are a direct call for violence.

Rs are correct on 1 and not on 2 imo.

To answer your hypothetical ... no, I would not be okay with Mitch singeling out 2 liberal justices .... just as i am not okay w schumer singeling out 2 justices here.

I can admit when my party puts their foot in their mouth.

Can you?

(rhetorical .. i dont need an answer)

haha...SS I love you brother, but I cant spend anymore time on it today. You know how bad I type, so foot remains in mouth most the time

[punch it in]

Absolutely nobody is saying Schumers words were ok. Nobody. That is not what is up for debate here. It is the fact that Trump can say whatever the hell he wants to incite violence, wars, racial divide, and the left is supposed to recite the sticks and stones chant and move on while the right says it is about actions not words. Now Schumer pulls a Trump and the right is flabbergasted. I mean gtfoh.