Supreme Court

Chuck Schumer's Trumpian Attack on the Supreme Court Threatens the Judicial Independence That Democrats Claim To Defend

The Senate minority leader threatened two justices by name, and then he lied about it.

|

Democrats who bemoan President Donald Trump's assaults on the independence of the judiciary and his attempts to create "alternative facts" cannot be taken seriously if they fail to condemn Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) for threatening members of the Supreme Court who take positions he does not like and then falsely claiming he did nothing of the kind. If they remain silent, defend Schumer, or engage in obfuscating whataboutism, they will reveal themselves as unprincipled hacks who care about these issues only when they can be deployed as weapons against their political opponents.

"They're taking away fundamental rights," Schumer said yesterday at a pro-choice rally outside the Supreme Court as the justices considered the constitutionality of a Louisiana law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Turning to point at the Supreme Court building, he angrily added: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, 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."

Although the nature of that "price" was vague, the meaning of Schumer's comments was plain: If Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointees whom Schumer opposed, dare to cross him by voting to uphold Louisiana's law, they will suffer unpleasant consequences. Yet after Schumer's threat drew a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, the senator's spokesman blatantly lied about what his boss had said.

"Women's health care rights are at stake and Americans from every corner of the country are in anguish about what the court might do to them," said Justin Goodman, Schumer's communications director. "Sen. Schumer's comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court." He said Roberts' response was based on "the right wing's deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said."

After threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Schumer did say this: "The bottom line is very simple: We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues that you're gonna be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you're trying to do now, ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far right? You're gone in November."

So it is true that Schumer warned his Republican colleagues in the Senate about the electoral consequences of confirming justices apt to uphold abortion restrictions. But it is also undeniably true that he threatened those justices by name while pointing at the Supreme Court. That is not a "deliberate misrepresentation." It is what actually happened. We have the video. To its credit, CNN, one of the president's least favorite news outlets, forthrightly described Goodman's version of events as "false."

Given what Schumer actually said, Roberts' response was perfectly understandable: "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."

When it comes to defending the integrity of the judicial branch, Roberts has been evenhanded. Here is what he said in 2018 after Trump dismissed a decision against his asylum policy as the politically motivated work of "an Obama judge":

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.

Roberts returned to that theme last December in his annual report on the judiciary. "We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity and dispatch," he wrote. "As the new year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us, we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public's trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law."

Roberts was hardly the only public figure who objected to Schumer's threat, which was criticized not only by conservative commentators but by legal scholars to their left. "These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable," Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted. "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."

Neal Katyal, who served as principal deputy solicitor general during the Obama administration, concurred. "Thank you Larry for saying this," he said. "I agree. We shouldn't let Trump destroy decorum and respect across the board. I very much hope Senator Schumer apologizes, and we turn the page."

The American Bar Association also chimed in. "The American Bar Association is deeply troubled by today's statements from the Senate Minority Leader threatening two sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over their upcoming votes in a pending case," said ABA President Judy Perry Martinez. "Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats—whether real or allegorical. Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable."

Today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) condemned Schumer's comments on the Senate floor. "There is nothing to call this except a threat," McConnell said. He accused Schumer of trying to "gaslight the entire country" by denying the substance of his tirade. "If he cannot even admit to saying what he said, we certainly cannot know what he meant," McConnell said. "At the very best his comments were astonishingly reckless and extremely irresponsible."

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) wants to formalize that judgment. "I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame," he tweeted yesterday. "So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt."

Trump, who is in no position to claim the moral high ground on this issue, also got in his licks. "There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices," he tweeted yesterday. "This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!" Today he added that "Schumer has brought great danger to the steps of the United States Supreme Court!"

Schumer's response today was only semi-apologetic:

I feel so passionately about this issue, and I feel so deeply the anger of women all across America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove to take down Roe v. Wade….Now, I should not have used the words I used. They didn't come out the way I intended to. My point was that there would be political consequences…for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose. Of course I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise. I'm from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat.

Schumer feels passionately about abortion rights. Many opponents of Roe v. Wade feel passionately about abortion, which they view as tantamount to child murder. Would Schumer accept their passion as an excuse for threatening judges who overturn legal restrictions on abortion?

Schumer is from Brooklyn. Donald Trump is from Queens. Would Schumer accept Trump's birthplace or his tendency to "speak in strong language" as an excuse for questioning the legitimacy of a "so-called judge" who ruled against him, for saying another judge had "an inherent conflict of interest" because his parents were born in Mexico, or for dismissing an appeals court ruling he did not like as "a political decision"?

Before his confirmation, Gorsuch, one of the Trump-nominated justices whom Schumer threatened, expressed concern about such comments. "I know the men and women of the federal judiciary," Gorsuch said. "I know how hard their job is, how much they often give up to do it, the difficult circumstances in which they do it…I know these people, how decent they are, and when anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing, because I know the truth."

If you believe that is a bunch of self-serving claptrap, that Trump is right when he suggests that judges (when they disagree with him, at least) are doing nothing more than following their own political prejudices, then you believe an independent judiciary is an illusion. If judges are simply politicians in robes, if they cannot be expected to set aside their personal preferences when they decide cases, that whole branch of government, which plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting people's rights, and preventing the government from exceeding its constitutional limits, is fundamentally illegitimate. Likewise if you think, as Schumer does, that judges should decide cases based on "political and public opinion consequences."

The rule of law requires conscientious judges who, whatever the differences in their interpretive approaches, honestly try to apply the law "without fear or favor." It also requires resisting political interference in judicial decisions, no matter the source of that threat. This is a chance for Democrats to show they believe in that principle even when it is politically inconvenient.

NEXT: You Don't Become a "State Actor" Just by Getting Government Funding or Benefits,

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Called it.
    “Trumpian”
    Lol

    1. “engage in obfuscating whataboutism”

      1. Obfuscating whataboutism? Which right-wing people NEVER do, right? What’s good for the goose, is ALWAYS good for the gander, right? Principles, not principals?

        So we can expect you to support Schumer’s “Absolute Rights”, correct?

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/president-trump-absolute-rights/607168/
        Donald Trump’s Strange and Dangerous ‘Absolute Rights’ Idea
        This is a profound misunderstanding of the American constitutional system.

        1. Which right-wing people NEVER do, right?

          I think that defending a whataboutism with another whataboutism is a case of dividing by zero.

          1. He’s a raving lunatic.

            1. Typical empty-headed conservative duh-head Trumpbot response! Stumped by an argument or facts? Throw up a totally unoriginal, unfunny, infantile insult! Then walk away and self-congratulate on your cleverness!

              1. I wasn’t being clever. Just making a simple observation.

                1. I wasn’t being clever

                  Heh, no shit.

                  1. Defending Kirkland and Squirrel in the same day?

                    It’s like the 3 Amigos of idiot trolls!

                    1. You, Nardz, and JesseAZ. You got it.

                    2. I know you are but what am I? That’s pathetic for even you Kirkland.

                    3. You should probably stop using it then.

                    4. The best you had was doubling down with “You should probably stop using it then”

                      AAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH

                    5. It is pretty pathetic sparky. It was intentional on your part, own it

                    6. Pretty sure the the triumvirate of me, jesseAZ, and R Mac defeats that of sparky, sqrlsy, and Kirkland in almost every mind…

              2. “Throw up a totally unoriginal, unfunny, infantile insult!”

                I did notice you did not deny its veracity …

      2. When Proggies squeal about “Whataboutism”, it is their pathetic attempt at a defense of “Principals over Principles”.
        E.g.- Trump is the egregious Pussygrabber. Someone reminds them that Bill Clinton is a disgusting letch and probably got more tang in the White House than Trump will ever, but this is ignored because Bill is for Fourth Trimester Abortion.

        1. IOW, Rape-rape vs Ridiculous braggadocio.

          The left has made their judgement. Rape-rape and taking advantage of young subordinate women is OK with them, but crude and over-the-top braggadocio about sexual prowess in a private conversation between 2 men is proof that you are literally Hitler.

          OK, not really. This judgement only applies if you are on their team and not on their team, respectively.

    2. Exactly. It wasn’t Trumpian. It was Ancient Schumerian.

      1. You got a real lol with that one!
        Well played

      2. dude. funny.

      3. I will issue a rare apology for secretly believing that as a commenter you were just a no-talent hack like the rest of us.

      4. That wins the internet for the day.

        1. OT: ‘Report: Hunter Biden Touted Political Connections to Teach Drug Policy Course at UCLA’

          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/05/rreport-hunter-biden-touted-political-connections-to-teach-drug-policy-course-at-ucla/

          Form the article:
          “Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter touted his political connections last year while unsuccessfully trying to convince the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to hire him to teach a drug policy course, according to a new report.”

          This must be like how he got on the Amtrak board. By being a regular user.

    3. Is he just now noticing what an ass Schumer is? Will he figure out that Nadler and Schiff are even worse and lie even more?
      Labeling this bs as “Trumpian” just goes to show how ignorant the writer has been about how these politicians have always conducted themselves.
      On another note, I took Schumer’s whining as a plain political threat. He doesn’t like that there are judges who might not rubber stamp his every whim. He probably wants to pack the court or impeach them for flimsy reasons. If right wing media has played up these threats as more than typical for Democrats, then they are overplaying their hands

      1. The editors write the headline. They often do it in a way to generate clickbait. Looks like it worked by the number of comments.

    4. “Chuck Schumer’s Trumpian Attack …”

      In Today’s episode of #BothSides at Reason …

    5. Because it was.

      Trump has repeatedly attacked the judiciary, including direct attacks on individual jurors.

      1. He’s insulted them, he’s said nasty things about them, but where has he ever threatened them?

        “Judge Soandso is a bad man, who issues legally incorrect rulings!” Insult, but not a threat.

        “Judge Thisandthat is a bad man, who issues legally incorrect rulings, and he’d better watch out!“? Threat.

    6. All that, and he couldn’t cite one time Trump actually threatened a judge.

  2. The rule of law requires conscientious judges who, whatever the differences in their interpretive approaches, honestly try to apply the law “without fear or favor.” It also requires resisting political interference in judicial decisions, no matter the source of that threat. This is a chance for Democrats to show they believe in that principle even when it is politically inconvenient.

    From a magazine and writer who cheered the court inventing a right to government sanctioned gay marriage, this statement is rich to say the least.

    1. also laughable to assert (D) believes in anything

    2. inventing a right to government sanctioned gay marriage

      Do you believe there’s a “right” to government sanctioned (and enforced) straight marriage?

      1. Not hardly; it is “establishing” religion.

        1. On the flip side, it is kind of funny to imagine these SJWs, in a time before women’s sufferage, standing against popular practice pretty specifically designed to allow a man’s property and clout to be transferred to his wife and their family by default. Like “the patriarchy” would be so much weaker if we’d had 1500 yrs. of gay marriage.

      2. Yes it’s absolutely a right for two straight guys to get married.

      3. No. States are free to get out of the marriage business any time they like. But, the Constitution does not mandate that they define marriage to include same sex couples when homosexuality was illegal when the document was written. States can define or fail to define marriage however they like. To say they must include gays is just to invent a bullshit right because reason and various judges like gays and don’t give a shit about the rule of law or any set of principles beyond “I Want”.

        1. Equal protection under the law. Next!

          1. That is not even a sensible answer. The law doesn’t have to treat everyone equally. Some people are in prison because of the force of law. Some people get government benefits and so forth.

            The issue is whether the state is under any obligatin to recognize every relationship because it recognizes some. And the answer to that is no. They are not required to recognize marriages to animals or polygamy or incest or any number of other relationships. To say they must recognize gay relationships is to say that gays are some kind of protected class akin to race that requires it where polygamy or incest isn’t. And no, gays are not a protected class and were never intended to be one. Homosexuality was illegal for most of this country’s history.

            Why do Libertarians find it so impossible to grasp what equal protection under the law means? None of you dumb asses understand it or seem capable of learning even after it is explained to you.

            1. You don’t see how a state courthouse performing straight marriages but refusing to perform gay marriages is a problem from an equal protection standpoint? Gay people are being deprived of a government service provided to straight people purely because of their sexual orientation. That being gay was illegal a while ago is completely irrelevant, it isn’t illegal now.

              If the state performed no marriages at all and left it up to the church that would be one thing. If they’re in the marriage business, they don’t get to exclude gay people.

              1. It was completely legal for a gay guy to marry a gay female.

                1. True. What legitimate government interest is accomplished by marrying a straight man to a straight woman, but refusing to marry a gay man to another gay man?

                  1. Do you honestly need a history lesson on familial relationships for the last 6000 years?

                    Marriage was developed as a way to maintain family control of property. It isnt needed in today’s world, which is why government should leave the marriage business, but let’s not pretend there wasnt a valid reason for millennia in the formation of marriage.

                    1. The difference is that marriage licensing is relatively new event. In the old days, people would record their marriages with the county, but they didn’t need government permission to marry through a license. A lot of that came about as part of Jim Crow and the eugenics movement as a means to prevent interracial marriage.

              2. You are just assuming that a state can’t discriminate against gays. it can. Again, you guys just are untrainable.

                1. The already discriminate against unmarried couples, throuples, etc.

                  1. Indeed.

                2. Okay, forget gay or straight.

                  John can legally marry Lindy because John is a man.

                  Lisa can not marry Linda for no other reason than the fact that Lisa is a woman and not a man.

                  That looks like a clear equal
                  protection violation.

                  I agree that the government should be out of the marriage business, but if they are in they can’t say it’s okay for a man
                  to marry a woman but a woman can’t.

                  Same the other way around.

                  And I realize that equal protection was not the specific argument before the Supreme Court. So whatever. They reached the correct ruling for a different (and possibly less of an objectively correct) reason.

                  There is nothing un libertarian about the result. It results in more net liberty. Not less.

    3. I’d say that Gorsuch is the exact type of judge we should hope for. Not blatantly political and fairly strict on Constitutional principles rather than ceding to bs precedents. Kavanaugh is a political animal and I wouldn’t cry if he did something to justify being kicked off the court. The only reason I wanted his nomination to succeed is because of how dirty the tactics were to prevent it. It would be ridiculous to allow falsified allegations to be the norm for any political opposition

    4. “whatever the differences in their interpretive approaches, honestly try to apply the law “without fear or favor.””

      Social Justice means “our side wins”. “Favor” is not a bug, it’s a feature.

  3. >>you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!

    Schumer recently watched Young Guns

    >>You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

    and Pelican Brief

  4. “reveal themselves as unprincipled hacks”

    Sure, Sullum, “them”
    Jacob Sullum is also an unprincipled hack

    1. Case in point: this article, trying to falsely equate Trump’s assertion that a decision was made due to political motives of an “Obama judge” with the clear threat of violence by a man leading an angry mob, and trying to falsely distance the Left, and other leftists, from this clear fuck up

      1. Seems like a big assumption to interpret it as a threat of violence.
        I don’t know about equivalence, but it was shitty when Obama tried to scold the court over Citizen’s United and it’s shitty for Schumer or Trump to do similar things.

        1. Even if it’s not a threat of violence, it still is a threat implying some type of consequences against the members of the court. A member of the legislature threatening the judiciary with consequences violates the principles of separation of power.

          Tossing that aside, when you’re standing in front of an angry crowd, you name specific individuals, and you use the phrase, “You won’t know what hit you,” you’re treading awfully close to the line of threatening violence.

          1. Yes, whatever his intent, it was a totally inappropriate thing to say. If people like Schumer are going to blame Trump for anything an idiot supporter of his does, they ought to apply the same standards to things they say.

          2. “A member of the legislature threatening the judiciary with consequences violates the principles of separation of power.”

            Is that true? Congress threatens the President all the time. The President threatens the Congress all the time.

            1. The Left’s turn to the politics of personal destruction as a routine tactic seems relatively new to me.

              It used to just be smears to attack your government employment. Then deplatforming. Then attacking your employment generally. They’re increasingly using the judicial system to threaten prosecution, then bankrupt and imprison.

              They realize that personnel is policy. Destroy the personnel, destroy the policy.

              Will the Right ever fight back?

          3. That obvious point seems lost on the crowd who obsess over the “norms” Orange Man violates and all the various nefarious climates he supposedly creates.

        2. The literal meaning is violence (“wont know what hit you”) but it could also be used metaphorically.
          That ambiguity is useful when making threats.

        3. Seems like a big assumption to interpret it as a threat of violence.

          It seems like an even bigger assumption to interpret it any other way. It was clearly a threat of some form of reprisal involving significant consequences for the justices it was targeted at. What would you say are the most likely alternatives?

          1. Mean tweets. Duh.

          2. It was clearly a threat aimed at the individuals personally.

            The Left doesn’t bother much with political persuasion anymore. They win by threatening to destroy individuals.

            1. What’s new? Reason is always using these leftist sins to establish false equivalence with Evil Orange One. I have lost count.

      2. If things ran correctly, Kavanaugh would challenge Schumer to a duel on the capitol steps, and beat the shit out of him.

        Bringing back dueling would shut a lot these progtards up.

  5. I can’t really blame Schumer for being passionate about defending Roe v. Wade. I learned in college that landmark decision has attained the status of SUPER-PRECEDENT. Which means its logical foundation is so rigorous that it must never be revisited, or even questioned.

    #SaveRoe

  6. Does Schumer even feel a lick of shame?

    I’m talking, of course, about his moobs.

    1. Nobody wants to see him lick his moobs! You’re disgusting!

      1. You’re as funny as Tony’s AIDS diagnosis.

  7. Chuck Schumer’s Trumpian Attack

    So if Trump does it, can we call it Schumerian?

    1. Not to be confused with Sumerian, for the record.

    2. I think we should.

  8. This is HARDLY the first time Democrats in the Senate have implicitly threatened the Supreme Court. From Reason’s own pages:

    https://tinyurl.com/tnr6k6f

    I can’t remember and can’t seem to find-did those senators face any form of censure for their implicit threats attempting to influence the Supreme Court?

    1. And then there was Obama calling out the SCOTUS Citizen’s United majority in the State of the Union. There was FDR’s court packing threat which led to the atrocious Wickard decision. Yeah, the Democrats have a long history of standing on the principle of an independent judiciary. Standing on its neck, I mean

      1. I was mostly confused at how the last time Democrats threatened the Supreme Court, a mere 6-7 months ago, seems to have been completely memory-holed in this article. Now, it’s not a physical threat to the judges, but a threat to the court itself, but it’s still essentially the same thing-Democrats in the current Senate threatening consequences if the court doesn’t decide their way.

        Instead, the comparison is made to Trump, whose nastiest comments were “This is a political ruling and we’re going to prove it IN COURT.” So, in essence, he threatened no one and promised to follow the legal process when faced with a ruling he didn’t like. It’s such a gross comparison when you could cite a very similar example of this same thing happening from just months ago.

        1. I was mostly confused at how the last time Democrats threatened the Supreme Court, a mere 6-7 months ago

          You’re shitting me. Reason staff memory holes stuff within weeks and maybe even days. I’m pretty sure Robby had a Title IX article decrying the traps of ‘believe all women’ within a week of saying Kavanaugh should be investigated by the FBI *again*. Maybe even the same day.

          1. Perhaps that’s my fault. When I saw the headline, I actually thought this would be a new story in reference to the amicus brief sent to the court in August-I couldn’t remember if Schumer had been a signee to it or not. So I was surprised to learn that this was yet another threat from Democrats in the Senate against justices in the Supreme Court-which makes it seem fair to mention the last time this happened.

          2. I don’t think those things are as contradictory as you think.

            1. I don’t think those things are as contradictory as you think.

              So which is it Zeb, your average Title IX victim that Robby reports on is “guilty” or Kavanaugh is “guilty”?

          3. I like how ENB’s Rape Tree stories got memory-holed after Trump made his Mexican rapist speech.

            1. ENB did story about a rape tree? Like in Evil Dead?

              1. Trees on the Mexico border where traffickers would put articles of clothing from the illegal aliens they smuggled and raped.

                1. It would be very ironic if it turned out those trees were indeed Evil Dead deadite possessed raping trees that forced themselves on those traffickers.

                  That might make for a good horror film.

      2. All these Trumpian attacks launched by democrats throughout history… no wonder they hate the guy.

  9. Sullum, you’re going to pay the consequences and you wont know what hit you.

  10. I strongly disagree with Tribe. There is little or nothing beneath Senator Schumer.

  11. People of the federal judiciary are decent? They spend every moment of every day figure out how to violate the liberty of the citizenry. They are horrible and immoral people. They’re evil.

    1. They kick puppies too.

  12. “Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court.” He said Roberts’ response was based on “the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said.”

    BULLSHIT! to the first sentence.
    BULLSHIT! to the second sentence.

    1. Every other sentence from the Dems is a #SociopathsSmirkingLie.

  13. President Donald Trump’s assaults on the independence of the judiciary”

    How did Trump do that? note asking SC members who have spoken out against Trump in public to recuse themselves is not similar to threats from Schummer and quite appropriate standard for judges to recuse themselves

    1. Re-read you bring up the judge who is belongs to an anti American group who ruled against Trump that judge should have recused himself as well and should also be removed

  14. Nardz
    March.5.2020 at 10:36 am
    So does Sullum or Root eventually write the story about how Trump’s campaign suing for libel is a threat to the country, but Schumer threatening specific justices by name, at their workplace while leading an angry mob, is a defense of democracy?
    Maybe both

    Well shit, they aren’t defending him. What other retarded shitpile can I leave then? Ooh, ooh, I got it…

    Nardz
    March.5.2020 at 1:39 pm
    “reveal themselves as unprincipled hacks”

    Sure, Sullum, “them”
    Jacob Sullum is also an unprincipled hack

    1. I’ve always found Sullum to be a pretty principled hack.

    2. Well shit, they aren’t defending him.

      Ah! You got him. I mean, sure there’s a backhand aimed at Trump by name in the headlines and, as several commenters point out, Obama’s name is mentioned several times but there’s no mention about Obama making arguably more controversial arguments wrt citizen’s united… but they aren’t literally defending Schumer, you got Nardz good!

      1. Sparky is totes intelligent

        1. You’ve got quite the little army of knights riding your back door. You must be so proud.

          1. Wife cut you off cause you’re not supporting your family again? You’re cranky.

      2. That’s cute, another good little soldier to run to his defense.

        1. How do you cry this much lololl

          1. He really has been crying all day long.

    3. Why are you criticizing Nardz, and not everyone else? Whaaaa!

      1. Here’s another one.

        1. You could probably use a nap.

          1. Sure, John

            1. Ok Kirkland.

              1. You know what’s sad? The fact that the best you can do is rip off fake Tulpa. Serious lack of imagination.

                1. What’s sad is crying on behalf of Kirkland and Squirrel.

                2. God damn dude, I’m not even here and you fucking cry about me.

                  “fake Tulpa”

                  You decided I was Tulpa in the first place. Every time you post that, it’s an admission that you were wrong, but you keep busting it out because you’re too fucking stupid to realize it.

                3. “$park¥ is the Worst
                  March.5.2020 at 4:02 pm
                  You know what’s sad? The fact that the best you can do is rip off fake Tulpa. Serious lack of imagination.

                  “You should probably stop using it then”

    4. The dumbest part of your post is that you think this headline and take vindicates you for some reason.

  15. I know most Libertarians are for womens choice on abortion but i just cant support it, to me thats a human. Probably frrom my strong christian upbringing. But it is truly disgusting how defensive of killing babies that democrats can be. Also what was schumer going to do, hire a hit squad to kill gorsuch and kavanaugh.

    1. Yeah, I’m sure Schumer has a hit squad waiting right now

  16. I think it might be time for Mr. Schumer of New York to retire.

  17. “Chuck Schumer’s Trumpian Attack on the Supreme Court Threatens the Judicial Independence That Democrats Claim To Defend”

    The only thing Schumer’s Trumpian attack threatens is the ability of the news media to focus on some other important issue.

    1. Right but you’re a know liar and censorious, blovating coward

      1. And you can’t put together a complete sentence.

  18. This is performative horse shit.

    Schumer’s big mouth gave Republicans an opportunity to whine and promote the both-sides fiction. You should be thanking him.

    This country is about over. Which is fine by me; I’m leaving.

    1. Canada or Mexico?

  19. “They’re taking away fundamental rights,” Schumer said.”

    If free association is a fundamental right, then why are you constantly trying to undermine it with federal regulations, Chuck? If control of your body and its produce is a fundamental right, then why are you constantly trying to undermine it with federal regulations, Chuck?

    Oh right. You’re an authoritarian and a hypocrite. Never mind.

    1. You’ll notice the whole “her body, her choice” thing doesn’t extend to her right to inject heroin into her body if she wanted to.

      1. They only have a choice if it involves killing babies.
        Nothing else at all.
        Oh, wait. They can also choose to be men, but then don’t have a choice.
        It’s all so confusing – – – – – –

      2. Yep. I love pointing this out when it comes to prostitution or drug use or any number of other things. No, “My body, my choice” encompasses exactly ONE issue, and everything else government is gonna be all up in your shit.

  20. “Thank you Larry for saying this,” he said. “I agree. We shouldn’t let Trump destroy decorum and respect across the board. I very much hope Senator Schumer apologizes, and we turn the page.”

    I mean FFS, this is starting to become the theatre of the absurd. And I mean absurd literally. Up is down, black is white, words mean nothing, and effect doesn’t follow cause. Schumer threatens 2 SCOTUS justices by name “released the whirlwind” and “won’t know what hit you”, and it is Trump’s fault.
    Trump has said or tweeted lots of things. Some stupid, some funny, and a few right on target. He has criticized, and yes, name-called. But this is something Trump hasn’t done. And it is quite telling that the only thing Sullum could refer to was Trump’s “dismissal” of the ruling against his asylum position. So a disagreement between POTUS and a federal judge, is equivalent to a US Senator threatening 2 SCOTUS justices.

    1. starting to become the theatre of the absurd

      Starting to become?

    2. this is starting to become the theatre of the absurd

      “Starting to become”? I’d say that train left the station several years ago.

  21. Schumer’s Trumpian Attack

    My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

    1. Nice reference

      1. Shiny, even.

        1. Gorram brilliant.

  22. “Turning to point at the Supreme Court building, he angrily added: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, 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.’ Kavanaugh then appeared with a beer in his hand. He pulled the tab, emptied the entire thing into his mouth, and then smashed the empty beer can on his forehead until he was bleeding. He made quick work of Schumer taking him down with a stunner. He then spent the rest of the day fucking many bitches.”

    1. “down with a stunner”
      I would go with either the Kavanaugh Krusher or the Supreme Court Stunner.

      1. A Supreme Court Stunner off the top step. He was able to get the move off before the Latina Luchador jumped in.

        1. Then the wrestler known as ICE removed her mask, realized she was illegal, and deported her. (After she was thrown through a conveniently placed table, of course.)

    2. Nice! And exactly what all this bullshit really is.

      1. Well your crying about it is certainly worth multiple shitposts lolilol

  23. Cultists complain yet adore Dear Leader. Amazing.

    1. Dumb ass doesn’t understand what is going on and assumes everyone whose position he doesn’t like is just a “cultist”. Amazing. Actually, not amazing. It is typical. Life must suck being stupid. It really must.

      1. They do say ignorance is bliss, I’d wager he’s quite happy.

        1. Actually the full quote is “where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”

          Fits even better no?

      2. What’s hilarious was a few months back when every leftist was using the term cult while not realizing they were all pushing their own cults talking points.

    2. Pretty sure the side that privileges “Truth over facts!” is the cult one.

    3. wearingit
      March.5.2020 at 3:37 pm
      “Cultists complain yet adore Dear Leader. Amazing.”

      Fortunately, that straw man isn’t very heavy, since this asshole isn’t gonna get any help around here.

  24. “Trumpian attack”

    “We shouldn’t let Trump destroy decorum and respect across the board.”

    “Trump, who is in no position to claim the moral high ground”

    “engage in obfuscating whataboutism”

    1. Hmmmmm

  25. Trump’s “attacks on the judiciary” consist of his claiming that judges who make it clear they are against his politics should recuse themselves from cases involving his policies and saying a judge who was a member of a Mexican nationalist group should recuse himself from cases involving Trump.

    Whatever you think of those criticisms, they are not by any reasonable definition attacks on the independence of the judiciary. In fact, they are the opposite. Trump is asking for an independent judiciary and claiming judges he feels won’t give him or his policies a fair hearing recuse themselves from cases involving him or his policies. That is asking for an independent judiciary not attacking it.

    If reason thinks Trump’s claims are invalid, fine. They should explain why. I don’t find his criticisms that compelling either. But, to claim that Trump is attacking the independence of the judiciary and compare it to Schummer threatening Justices by name with “consequences” if they don’t rule as he wants them to is complete bullshit. Even when reason has a valid point, as they do here with Schummer and indeed would with Trump if they attacked his position honestly, they still manage to take a stupid and dishonest position.

    1. TDS will do that. Also, did you know I’m your sock? Because Sparky loves Kirkland and Squirrel.

      1. I didn’t know that. The “John Franchise” is going to take over the internet some day. It expands without my even knowing it.

        1. I’m also imitating Tulpa too, so you should stop doing that.

          1. Fuck, I thought you guys were all Spartacus.

            1. Nah, that’s Corey Booker. My senator!

  26. Two wrongs do not make a right. The just make twice as many wrongs.

  27. These Taliban like extremists who equate abortion with murder will not be satisfied with overturning Roe. If these conservative judges greenlight these fuckers you’re going to see all hell break loose and by that I mean we’ll see the passage of laws criminalizing traveling out of state travel to get an abortion. Laws allowing men to place women under house arrest to prevent them from leaving these Taliban Red States. If it’s murder to have an abortion then it’s conspiracy to murder to even plan for one in another jurisdiction.

    1. Didn’t you get banned for posting kiddie porn and 30 year old references?

      1. Oh right sorry it was just the kiddie porn you got banned for. The 30 year old dusty as fuck referenced were what you went to after I stole your screen name lololo

      2. He should probably been busy Cory long the young boy he has bound and gagged in his windowless panel van.

    2. #literallyahandmadestale.

    3. You seem rational and level-headed.

    4. The greenlight of basic medical cleanliness and admitting privileges in case of the 10% of abortions that have complication. What horrendous barriers.

      1. And I thought progtards loved endless Byzantine regulations on everything. Who knew?

    5. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

      Haha.

  28. Not surprised to hear once again how our “leaders” are supporting murder under the banner of “right to choose”. But murder is murder, and they will answer to an authority greater than man.

  29. Has Schumer been arrested yet?

    18 U.S. Code § 115(a)(1)(B):

    Whoever threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

    Schumer would of course argue that he didn’t actually threaten Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with assault. That’s fine. If the jury thinks that’s credible enough to amount to reasonable doubt, they can acquit him at his trial.

    1. I’m not sure if this law has to pass the “imminent lawless action,” test. I suspect it still does, in which case Schumer’s still in the clear, and has 1st Amendment protection.

      That doesn’t mean it’s okay for him to say shit like this, just means it’s not illegal.

      1. Let him make that argument to a judge. Legislators uniquely deserve to face the full force of the laws-as-written.

      2. I’m ok with the legality of it being sorted out at trial. Oh, and no bail for him. Let him sit it out in lock up. He sounds dangerous, and might be a flight risk.

        1. With those knockers of his, he might be a really popular inmate…

  30. Still looking for the part in the article where it explains what’s “Trumpian” about what Schumer did. If you had something, Sullum, you’d have presented it clearly for comparison, instead of smearing by innuendo, like everybody’s supposed to know what you’re implying. Dick.

    1. Prior to trump no politician ever said anything negative.

    2. What Schumer did is categorically different from Trump criticizing judicial decisions, and questioning the “reasonable and even-handed application of the law” by some judges.

      This is obvious, and I don’t even like Trump.

  31. Whatabotulism? Sounds painful.

  32. I’d like to see what Schumer would say if a liberal judge actually voted to uphold the LA law.
    The reality is he would be absolutely irate if an Obama or Clinton appointee ever dared to rule against a liberal law.
    He’d say he/she wasn’t doing the job she/he was appointed to do.
    So, he should expect conservative judges to follow suit the same way.
    This whole farce, Dem and Rep, is just getting so old.
    My fantasy is that some day our politicians across the spectrum would comprehend, defend, and abide by actual principles.
    But, alas, that’s just a fantasy.

    1. Dude, “principles” don’t have enough flex in them to take into account protected classes, underprivileged communities and the noble fight against whoever the woketards want to define as “fascists”.

      So, no principles allowed. And look how improved our society is therefrom!

  33. Why is anyone surprised…the intolerance and belief they have the absolute moral highroad is typical of the crony death cult that Schumer represents. Gosh is it was say a Catholic Senator saying this about Jewish Justices…we would never hear the end of it. And Chuck made all the Yenta’s in Brooklyn can’t wait to get knocked up and have a spa day at planned parenthood but many American women who are Christian don’t agree with you. You are not the expect in all things and you don’t decide on our lives…fing NYC bolshevik…

    1. Sorry typing too fast…’And Chuck maybe all the Yenta’s…”

    2. Yes of course, no conservative has ever acted like they have the absolute moral high ground.

      It’s not like they ever called themselves the Moral Majority or something.

  34. Trump might be rude. He might express his thoughts in an inappropriate manner. However, to my knowledge, he has never physically threatened a judge. Or anyone else for that matter. Especially a peer or superior.

    Calling this “Trumpian” is absurd. It’s far beyond even what Trump would dare to do.

  35. And you bury the lede, that is, the most offensive part of Schumer’s remarks:

    “Women’s health care rights are at stake” etc.

    What do you mean women, Chuck? Are you saying men can’t get pregnant?

  36. Trump was criticized for saying that Sotomayor and Ginsburg should recuse themselves in cases dealing with his administration.

    Could you imagine if Trump had said, “Sotomayor and Ginsburg, I want to tell you, if you don’t recuse yourselves, you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.”

    Schumer managed to make Trump’s comments about judges look tame by comparison.

    1. Trump hasn’t made similar “threats” about Supreme Court justices, no, but he has certainly made similar threats about other people with the temerity to defy him – Yovanovitch comes to mind – to say nothing of his goading his base to do his dirty work for him, when it comes to other elected officials, administrative personnel, and judges.

      Ah, but that would just be “whataboutism,” wouldn’t it? I guess you can only engage in “whataboutism” if you’re trying to make Schumer’s statements look worse than Trump’s, and not the other way around.

      By the way, there’s also a serious substantive distinction between the behaviors Schumer and Trump are attacking. Schumer was “threatening” the court over a nakedly political agenda to cut back on women’s right to choose. Trump was calling on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to “recuse” themselves just because Sotomayor correctly pointed out that the Court was granting extraordinary relief to the president’s lawyers in an unprecedentedly wide range of situations, on an unprecedentedly flimsy basis. So, while Schumer’s rhetoric was aimed at the serious damage the Supreme Court is doing to its legitimacy and the rule of law, Trump was insisting that it push further in the direction of being his own personal forum.

      1. “Trump hasn’t made similar “threats” about Supreme Court justices, no, but he has certainly made similar threats about other people with the temerity to defy him – Yovanovitch comes to mind –”

        Um, Yovanovitch worked for him. “Threatening” her employment if she doesn’t perform to Trump’s satisfaction is the President’s job.

        “By the way, there’s also a serious substantive distinction between the behaviors Schumer and Trump are attacking. Schumer was “threatening” the court over a nakedly political agenda to cut back on women’s right to choose.”

        The court can’t “cut back on a woman’s right to choose. It can only overturn the rather controversial notion that a constitution that doesn’t even mention abortion somehow protects it, and then allow states to regulate it as they see fit.

        And less, Schumer acted less appropriately than Trump. Congratulations.

        1. Um, Yovanovitch worked for him. “Threatening” her employment if she doesn’t perform to Trump’s satisfaction is the President’s job.

          That’s not what he did. He referred obliquely to bad things happening to her, while some organized-crime surrogates of his were tracking her movements. As a, um, “joke?” Weren’t you paying attention when this was reported, a couple of months ago?

          The court can’t “cut back on a woman’s right to choose. It can only overturn the rather controversial notion that a constitution that doesn’t even mention abortion somehow protects it, and then allow states to regulate it as they see fit.

          I suppose you must feel similarly about the constitutional precedents ensuring a right to engage in premarital sex, use contraception, or marry a person of one’s choosing.

          That’s the caselaw from which abortion rights spring. The right to choose is just an extension from the modern Court’s acknowledging that we have certain rights to our own bodily autonomy. We get to choose who we fuck and who we birth. I would have expected libertarians to be on board with that idea. I suppose you’re not one?

          1. It’s weird that you progressives insist upon synchronizing your psychosis.
            Almost like… programming

  37. “Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted…I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat.”

    You’d think a Harvard law professor would know what implicit means.

    1. You’d think a Harvard law professor might be honest.
      You’d be wrong; that asshole ‘admires’ Schumer enough to ignore blatant pressure which would have had the professor screaming bloody murder if Trump had done so.
      One more TDS-infected scum-bag lefty.

  38. “Chuck Schumer’s Trumpian Attack on the Supreme Court Threatens the Judicial Independence That Democrats Claim To Defend”

    Sullum’s bullshit should be jammed down his throat.
    Seek help, you pathetic piece of shit. And stop lying besides.

  39. Honestly, I’m more upset at Schumer for failing at the idiom than threatening the justices.

    You don’t “release the whirlwind”, you “reap the whirlwind”. I thought we were supposed to be able to count on our liberal overlords to at least be cultured?

  40. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do…….. Read More

  41. The rule of law requires conscientious judges who, whatever the differences in their interpretive approaches, honestly try to apply the law “without fear or favor.”

    This hoary bullshit would be a lot easier to take seriously if the case in question didn’t, y’know, involve a law that was expressly designed to deny women a constitutional right, where the Fifth Circuit intentionally reached a conclusion contrary to binding precedent in order to set up a Supreme Court challenge, just so that a new slate of newly-appointed justices could hear it.

    It would also be a lot easier to take if, y’know, Kavanaugh hadn’t offered a threat in almost these exact same terms, when he was fighting for his confirmation in the Senate. Do you remember that, Jacob? Can you stretch your recollection that far? Kavanaugh threatened to come for those who were attempting to block his god-given right to the Supreme Court, and it’s precisely cases like these that he had in mind.

    So cut the crap. Schumer didn’t threaten anyone, and we all know it. Roberts’s pearl-clutching posturing is intended to pull a veil across the conservative justices’ very political agenda, which they know will be less effective and lasting if it is broadly viewed as illegitimate. But we see that, too.

    1. “It would also be a lot easier to take if, y’know, Kavanaugh hadn’t offered a threat in almost these exact same terms, when he was fighting for his confirmation in the Senate.”

      Lol. It’s comments like this that make it hard to take people seriously sometimes.

      1. If you don’t think he was threatening consequences for the Democrats’ fight to block his nomination, then you evidently weren’t paying attention.

  42. When did democrats claim to defend the judiciary? I’ve only heard their court packing schemes, baseless attacks on Kavanaugh and disdain for constitutional limits on government.

  43. It is time for a Constitutional Amendment to fix / save SCOTUS.

    1) Fix the number of judges at 9 (ends court packing threat)
    2) One single 18 year term (whether it be Thomas or RBG, enough is enough)
    2a) Expiration dates for currently sitting judges to be determined by drawing physical lots (match sticks, numbered balls, or some other low tech, hard to mess with, manner)
    3) Each Presidential Administration gets to appoint one judge in year one of their administration, and one judge in year 3.
    4) Vacancies due to death, resignation, incapacitation, etc. to be fill for the remainder of that seat (just like the Senate), by the sitting President.
    5) Senate to vote up or down within 3 months of receiving the nomination – not sure that the penalty is if they don’t
    5a) If Senate votes down three times for open, then they must revote on all three and accept one of them.

    Probably a couple other failsafes to be added, but this might fix the situation for a generation or so, if we’re lucky.

    1. Better yet..get rid of judicial review at the Federal Level and sign the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 into law. States have the final say if a federal law is constitutional….the SC doesn’t have this right stated in the Constitution…Marshall is perhaps the worst American ever..

    2. 5a is a terrible idea. A president could just propose 3 awful nominees to be guaranteed one made it.

  44. D-cup chuck’s been tick on the legislative anus for forty years now.
    wrt nazi and d-cup, I don’t condone what they did, but I understand.

  45. As usual for “Reason.com” Jacob’s seems a delusional lefty Trump hater with laughable double standards for attacking Trump and excusing lefties. All one needs to do is look at the deranged, bigoted nonsense that regularly issues from the manifestly lawless, fascist 9th Circus lying about being a court to see that the idea of an “independent judiciary” (implying there’s some integrity to be found in it) is a very bad, delusional joke. Unlike Schumer, long ago judges actually had moral compasses that actually compelled them to humble themselves under the recognized higher authority of the constitutional rule of law. Now they merely twist that like a wax nose any way they like to suit their bigoted, lawless, fascist fancy that is the sole ultimate authority and lie about it like Schumer. Evil, lawless, fascist Dems and their corrupt, spineless RINO accomplices, being degenerate deep state denizens, have been united in their opposition to “make America great again” swamp drainer Trump God miraculously put in office in spite of the effort of both parties to defeat him. God used Real Americans, those Shrillary deemed “deplorables,” to choose him for a change from all the corruption of both parties in the past decades. Only God can save us.

  46. “If you believe that is a bunch of self-serving claptrap, that Trump is right when he suggests that judges (when they disagree with him, at least) are doing nothing more than following their own political prejudices, then you believe an independent judiciary is an illusion.”

    It is an illusion. We see judges and courts every day that uphold unjust laws or hand down obviously political decisions. The 9th Circuit has a reputation for lefty foolishness that is based on the reality of their rulings, not on some kind of conspiracy theory baked up by loonies on the right.

    Hell, Reason has written lots and lots and lots and lots of articles on judges and courts doing just that. Its not reasonable – nor correct – to accuse people who see the truth as being wrong about what is right in front of them.

  47. Brooklyn “tough” huh Chuckie? Sorry NYC wokes are sissies to the core. They have the numbers to vote commie policies in the rest of the State but honestly…they are not tough… bolshevik boys and girls from NYC run from a real fight…went to university with these types…total cowards…sorry Chuck this is not the old USSR and your some Troytsky elite butchering Ukrainian farmers…

    You are a very sad man

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.