Chuck Schumer Threatens SCOTUS Justices

Oh, Storm Rucker, you're adorable!

Care to answer the question?

Sorry, I may have missed it in the article you linked to that you didn't actually read, but where is the exact threat?

Not saying those comments aren't dumb, but I didn't see anything constituting an actual threat from what you posted.

Yep. And Trump has been using this strategy for a long time, and the Republican Party has been legitimizing it for him, so it is to be expected that it would be used against them.

Look for the same principle the next time there is a Democrat in the White House. The Republicns in the Senate have legitimized a lot of POTUS actions that they will regret very much when it isn't a Republican doing them.

Separate but equal had constitutional legality and had been established for decades with multiple judicial precedents that followed the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court. Separate but equal policies only start to be declared unconstitutional starting in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka.

Are you claiming that at no point in the future can the Supreme Court come back to a case or cases and say the decision(s) made in that case was wrong? That it can't right previous faulty decisions?

Abortion should not have been decided by the Supreme Court. Seven justices decided for a whole country the issue of abortion and the country has been divided ever since on the issue.

Where I agree it is an empty threat that means nothing, it also looks stupid making it, and it makes you look weak. It would be like me saying to @oldfella1962 you better watch out what you post because I am going to get you. It is ineffective, stupid, and it shows I have nothing. Schumer should have had the strength and dignity to state his negative opinion and concern without making a pointless threat. He is a politician who we would hope does not act like our dipshit president. Just because everyone else is making schoolkid threats does not mean you lose your shit and act like a child.

Schumer just looked like a straight up fool with those remarks. Lowering himself to Trump levels does him and his party no favors.

Totally agree. It was uncalled for and quite the display of weakness. Schumer should take a seat and let the intelligent adults talk.

When Chuck Schumer threatens anyone with a ‘whirlwind’ I’m sure they are left shaking in their boots. His hollow threat did do one good thing, though, which is refocus media attention on the judicial activism of the SC’s newest Republiclan Party members.

The merits of this case were already decided in 2016. SC had the ability to invalidate the Louisiana law, and quite quickly, but instead they slow walked it while the nutty 5th Circuit drew up ways to keep the Louisiana law alive. Enter Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Mr. “I hate stare decisis” Clarence Thomas. They realize this is their shot to augment the State’s ability to control a woman’s body. So we are left hoping John Roberts will apply constitutional principles and strike down this nonsense from Louisiana. Don’t hold your breath.

Okay, it turns out he was parodying Kavanaugh's outburst during his confirmation hearing. It was still a stupid thing to say, but it makes a little more sense.

So they took it out of context? Way to go @Federal Farmer , this is why you should never trust the national review and check your sources kiddo. This is why I really had no faith in what was claimed by you. don't get mad at me because you fell for a stupid troll from an obvious source of bullshit.

If you are going to try to get information from corrupt sources like Faux news, MSNBC, or the national review you have to get the whole story and not just their edited version of it.

Oh, and if you want a place to go where you can get close to the raw information you go to TYT. I double check them too, but normally I find they have given the whole view and not just some edited clip perspective. I want to hear the whole thing in context and certain sites don't give that. TYT has been the one that comes the closest to giving the full context being they give it. However even if they don't there are references to data or video where you can see the full context.

Stop listening to the national review. They are liars.

It's pretty easy to take something out of context when no context is given.

There's no real question there, just trolling because he can't adequately address the topic. Just like you're doing with this post. GFY.

Never go Full Trump.

There's nothing actionable in his words, but Schumer is in the wrong here. You don't politically threaten the Supreme Court. They're supposed to be a-political. Express your disagreement with a decision after is has been rendered.

If Trump made the statement Cenk Uygur's head would have exploded....and nothing of value would be lost.

There's not really anything to address in this topic other than your flip flopping.

But then they wouldn’t be able to sell baby organs as easily anymore.

I take it you’re fine with selling baby parts to China then?

Wow, knew that Organs R Us was booming and it's IPO recently hit an all time high, but hadn't heard about the tot chop shop, is that for real?

This legislation was in response to Kermit Gosnell and the controversy surrounding that situation.
There’s been several incidents over the past few years and that’s why they want admitive privileges. There’s a lot to this case that people aren’t realizing. Anyway, here’s one of the several stories about doctors selling baby parts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...s-often-came-from-babies-born-alive?_amp=true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/testimony-biotech-company/

Is @Federal Farmer secretly Carly Fiorina?

1st point -- I am actually. Either precedents matter or they don't. Once the court has ruled, only new laws or constitutional amendments can change it. If court rulings aren't final, then any new government can appoint new judges to effectively legislate the law. That's not how a legal system should work.

2nd point -- This I agree with.

So, Plessy v. Ferguson shouldn't have been been revisited by Brown v. Board of Education?

I think his point is that a Constitutional Amendment or a new law was the appropriate remedy in that case. I disagree, but I see the logic of the stance.

Careful what you wish for. You wouldn’t want future Dem-appointed judges overturning all the precedents related to gun rights and the interpretation of 2A, would you?

Molon labe.

Cool epitaph!

Cool story, sis.

Don't piss yourself.