Chuck Schumer Threatens the Supreme Court

I hope you’re not surprised. Not even shocked. After all, what Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a rally yesterday in front of the Supreme Court is well within the bounds of the Democratic Party playbook.

By now you know well what he said:

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.

Of course, Schumer was issuing a threat, a threat of bodily harm. Matt Margolis reminds us that such threats constitute a criminal act.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, "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" by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

Chief Justice John Roberts quickly denounced Schumer:

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.

The President of the American Bar Association, Judith Perry Martinez joined the chorus:

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats—whether real or allegorical,” she said. “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.”

As of now, Schumer has not apologized for his threats. His spokesman issued the following statement:

Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grass roots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.

Of course, this is ridiculous. We are all perfectly capable of understanding what Schumer was saying. He did not refer to Senate Republicans or to any political price. He was threatening violence against two justices of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the brain dead masses within the Democratic Party cannot tell the difference, but the difference is very, very clear.

Even Trump hating Prof. Lawrence Tribe said that Schumer had gone too far.

Dare we say that it was a breach of democratic decorum? Considering how much time and effort the Democratic Party has put into reproaching President Trump for his breaches of decorum, it seems that its leaders now want to surpass him in that arena.

Since the Democratic Party does not believe in democracy-- unless it is winning-- its faith rides on edicts issued by judges. Thus, it does everything in its power to bully judges and justices into ruling the way it wants them to rule.

We all know that newspaper columnists and law professors try to influence the minds of justices, by presenting them as pillars of judiciousness if they rule the right way and as disgraces to their profession if they do not. The point is, reputation matters. And judges can be influenced by their press clippings… perhaps only marginally, but still the influence is real.

As for Schumer, were you not reminded of his and his party’s approach to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination? You recall that the Democratic strategy was to destroy the man, to destroy his family, to do anything within its power to turn the world’s greatest deliberative body into a firing squad.

Nothing about the exercise concerned Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions. Nothing about it involved the judge’s temperament. It was all about slander and defamation. And it was all in the name of abortion... as though abortion shows kindness toward women.

The Democratic Party is so completely consumed by venom that it can no longer think at all. The same was true in the impeachment fiasco. While pretending, for the first time in their lives, to care about the Constitution, national security, the rule of law and the constitution, the exercise was merely about destroying the president… or at least, to make it impossible for him to govern.

You might think that the Democratic Party, rationalizing its bullying ways by saying that is trying to save the nation from fascism, has gone all in for fascism. What could be more fascistic than the Schumer remark? What could be more fascistic than the Antifa street thugs who are acting like Brown Shirted domestic terrorists? And who are doing so under the aegis of politicians like Portland mayor Ted Wheeler. What could be more fascistic than a member of Congress, one Maxine Waters, calling for the systematic public harassment of Trump administration officials?

It is not about debate and discussion. It is not about deliberation. The Democratic Party has become the party of bullies. The sentiment has been echoed by Eric Holder and Sen. Cory Booker, among others.

What does it all mean? Try this: the Democratic Party has become the party of weakness. It has become the Girl Party, the party that is against guns, against war, against any effort to defend the nation against the threat of Islamist terrorism. Democrats understand that they lost in 2016 because President Trump presented himself as the antidote to America’s Girl Party.

Now, like reconstituted macho warriors, Democrats have been insisting that they are really tough, that they are really strong, that they are really courageous. They have done so by declaring war...not against America’s enemies, but against Republicans. They have declared war on thought crimes and they have declared super duper war on the climate.

Now, consider the irony of the Schumer threats. He was standing up strong and proud to defend women. Not to defend women’s reproductive autonomy, but to defend abortionists against a Louisiana law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. In other words, the law required abortion providers to be licensed medical professionals, with a specialization in gynecology. You might argue that the law was designed to protect women.

And yet, at a time when the women’s rights movement has more and more become an infertility cult, any restriction on any abortion, any indication that perhaps female sexuality has some link to procreation, is considered to be a threat to women, a threat to the leftist agenda, a threat to everything that the left now holds sacred.

In truth, for the modern left, and in the name of women’s rights, pregnancy has become the new curse. Anything that might make it even slightly more difficult to end a pregnancy and to ensure that a woman does not miss any days at work is fine and good.

Unfortunately, and wherever you stand on Roe v. Wade-- which is not at issue in the Louisiana case the court was dealing with yesterday-- the abortion rights movement has shown no ability to compromise, no ability to negotiate, no willingness to consider that there might be different sides of the issue.

Thus, a leader of the world’s greatest deliberative institution wants to shut down debate, to shut down dissent, to shut down discussion, to bully and to threaten justices of the Supreme Court.

It shows the true face of today’s Democratic Party. It is an ugly face indeed.