…When the Democrats we’re concerned about the chilling effect President Trump’s criticism of a foreign service bureaucrat would have? Not withstanding that the ambassador served at his pleasure?
Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.
Mr. Schumer was speaking before abortion-rights activists as the Supreme Court considers whether to curtail the ability of abortion providers to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions—a doctrine known as third-party standing. Mr. Schumer, still addressing Messrs. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, added: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Between all the Democrats talk of eliminating or neutralizing the electoral college, making the Senate a popular body or illuminating it, and packing the supreme court and they’re not attacking it, it’s almost as if the Democrats have not the faintest interest in checks, balances and federalism.
Chief Justice Roberts was not amused:
This is going to be an interesting summer.

Schumer’s threats will not serve his degenerate ilk well in the coming decades, me thinks.
That’s different because reasons.
I agree with MBerg. We shouldn’t let Trump destroy decorum and respect across the board. Schumer definitely owes the court an apology.
Schumer deserves nothing less than censure!
Really, Emery?!
For Christ’s sake the Democrats destroyed decorum, not to mention constitutional rights of it’s citizens, before Trump ever did. Your TDS is apparently, terminal. Sheesh!
Does the Secret Service protect Supreme Court justices? Thinking that Schumer might have an interview coming up.
Scott as a former poly sci major this is so damn embaressing to ask but isnt censure just really window dressing or the Senate equivalent to being put in a timeout? Is there anything legitmate that could be done to him (legally and above board people) that could actually really sting? Because he aint getting expelled for this.
Bosshoss429: Clutch pearls much?
It would be an easier pill to swallow if Roberts had chastised Trump for his criticism of Sotomayor and RGB.
Kind of looks like Roberts has decided to pick a side — no?
I’m sure it was just an oversight that an actual quote of Trump’s criticism of Sotomayor and RBG wasn’t included. I mean in contrast to the quote provided by this post. You know, so one could compare and contrast.
POD, my thought is POTUS was impeached by a house which was a obvious political stunt with no teeth. The long winded Schumer who never misses the opportunity to lecture the GOP on everything he see righteous deserves being called out for his behavior, even if it really has no teeth. What if someone that was in the crowd he was speaking in front of goes on to attack one of the justices? I doubt much else will come of it even though it was a real threat against members of SC.
The link below is interesting take on this conversation by a former Special Attorney at the DOJ.
https://spectator.org/chuck-schumer-wise-guy/
Emery, from those hacks over at NBC:
Asked Wednesday by the Associated Press about the president’s comment, Roberts responded, “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.”
He added on the day before Thanksgiving that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Disagree. Roberts said nothing when Trump criticized Ginsberg and Sotomayor, or when Trump was attacking Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the Stone case or the judges ruling in Flynn cases.
jdm — show a little personal initiative when attempting to troll me — very weak — almost Trump-like🤡
Roberts’ comments were in response to Trump’s criticism. And note, Trump criticized decisions already made by justices, two of whom had made comments that strongly suggested they could hardly be impartial about a case involving him. Presidents and justices certainly don’t lose their rights to criticize because of their positions, though it may not be helpful.
Threatening someone before they’ve taken any action or made any ruling that you might disagree with seems to me to be significantly worse threat to justice (though the Bidens may disagree).
Anyway, I’m sure the legal community will quickly rush to Roberts, Gorsuch’s and Kavanaugh’s defense, just as they did with RGB, Sotomayor and Jackson. Sure…any minute now…really…
Perhaps the legal community just doesn’t know about it yet. After all, I haven’t seen Schumer’s outburst on the front page of the Minneapolis and St. Paul papers yet.
So, no quote then. We just have to take your word for the severity of Trump’s criticism. And asking for a quote, albeit indirectly, is trolling.
Emery;
What Night Writer said.
Of course, in your limited view, DemocRATs are blameless. Just ask them.
Emery apparently cannot tell the difference between “threatening” and “not threatening.” Yeah, I’m not surprised either.
Well, hey, the StarTribune finally got Schumer’s comments on the front page, albeit in 8 point type, under the heading, “Other headlines”, and focusing on his Schumer’s second apology, which was slightly more contrite than his first response, where he first tried to lie that he didn’t threaten anyone specifically, and then criticized Republicans for “manufacturing outrage”. This was, of course, after he stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and, ahem, manufactured outrage.
It would be an easier pill to swallow if Roberts had chastised Trump for his criticism of Sotomayor and RGB.
Only dimwitted, dickhead leftists can’t tell the difference between criticism, which is protected under the 1st Amendment, and threatening a federal employee, verbally or otherwise, which is a felony. That’s because the US Constitution has way too many multi-syllabic words in it for most of them to understand.
To digress briefly, it’s the same reason, I guess, they don’t understand that their unconstitutional attempt to subvert the Electoral College, the so called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”, is expressly forbidden by the very instrument they are hoping to trash.
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
Censure doesn’t have much of a lasting impact (although I guess POD could get a “Censured Forever” meme circulating), but Schumer won’t like being dragged around the Senate chamber by his hooked beak, so it’s worth doing.
Schumer decided to double-down, rather than apologize: https://cnsnews.com/article/washington/susan-jones/mcconnell-reads-schumers-shameful-threats-record-schumer-im-brooklyn
“I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words that I used, but in no way was I making a threat.
“I never, never would do such a thing. And Leader McConnell knows that.”
Schumer accused McConnell and his fellow Republicans of “manufacturing outrage,” and he said the real outrage is the Republican attacks on a woman’s right to choose.
Schumer said he will continue to “fight for the women of America.”
Manufactured outrage? Shouldn’t have used the words he used? It should come as no surprise that Chuck is expecting us to read his mind and divine that he was actually talking about political consequences for the GOP, rather than threatening unspecified consequences against Supreme Court justices? I wonder if the crowd cheering for his remarks interpreted (and by interpreted, I mean inserted a large swath of context and change the intended target of the words) the words the same way?
If Schumer wants to play the I-refuse-to-apologize-for-you-misunderstanding-my-threats game, let’s play it this way: If he can’t choose his words more carefully, then he’s incompetent and has no business being a U.S. Senator.
Yeah, from my knowledge of New York, I would never, ever, ever think “you won’t know what hit you” was a threat. Certainly it wasn’t anything that we see in just about every movie about the area, and certainly it’s not like any thinking person in the nation would instantly recognize that genre of speech.
Except, of course, it is.
The way threats work is that they aren’t intended to be carried out, they are intended to change behavior.
Has any ever heard of a Democrat condeming the fascist behavior of antifa?
Maybe next Schumer will show the justices pics of their grandkids being picked up at school.