Law In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for 'threatening' comments - "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Schumer said of Trump appointees as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.



March 4, 2020, 4:09 PM CST

By Pete Williams

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts publicly chastised Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Wednesday over comments Schumer made outside the court as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.

Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested that President Donald Trump's court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, "won't know what hit" them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions. He spoke during a rally on the sidewalk in front of the court building.

"I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

In a highly unusual written statement issued late Wednesday, Roberts said "statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only appropriate, they are dangerous."

"All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter," Roberts said.

The court was hearing a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It was the first major abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold a woman's right to choose. He was replaced by Kavanaugh, who is generally more conservative.

Schumer told the crowd that state legislatures are waging a war on women by passing tough new abortion laws. "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."

The senator's spokesman said Schumer was referring to the political price Republicans "will pay for putting them on the court." It was a warning, the spokesman said, "that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

In his statement, Roberts said, "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory," before calling Schumer's comments inappropriate and dangerous. "All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

Roberts has often said in public appearances that he believes it is mistaken to assume that federal judges act out of their own partisan political interests. In 2018, He notably responded to President Trump's criticism of a federal judge as "an Obama judge."

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said then. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
 
"I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

Take THAT, baby... uh... savers!

Roberts has often said in public appearances that he believes it is mistaken to assume that federal judges act out of their own partisan political interests.

Imagine believing this though. I'm pretty sure the guy ain't stupid, which means he's lying.
 
1583363723128.png
 
It’s always nice to be reminded that Supreme Justices are a very different sort of government official that won’t take shit from anyone else.

I know everyone and their dog says it, but I really do idolize Supreme Court judges. Multiple times they have recused themselves from hearing cases and acting as arbitrators because it gives them too much power and the point of the courts is to not interfere with politics. How many people do you know specifically refuse power and don’t interact with politics?

That being said, when push comes to shove, the Supreme Court can never really shove. Sure what they says is law, but they don’t have the capacities to enforce it. If tomorrow they said, ‘Donald Trump, what your doing is illegal you have to stop right now’ and he simply said no, what recourse do they have against him? Maybe it’s for the best they remain apolitical and stay on the good sides of the people. With a little political maneuvering and some repeated bypass of their regulations, they could quickly be relegated to a simple rubber stamp
 
Imagine believing this though. I'm pretty sure the guy ain't stupid, which means he's lying.
Eh, as a judge I'm sure he parses his language carefully. If he'd said "it's mistaken to believe..." that would be one thing, but "assume" implies that he's aware that some judges may be biased, but you'd have to look at them on an individual level.
 
It’s always nice to be reminded that Supreme Justices are a very different sort of government official that won’t take shit from anyone else.
I remember when Obama tried to bully them and Alto made Eric Holder write a letter explaining he knew how the separation of powers worked.

The only thing more exceptional than threatening sitting judges is the not-biased medias total refusal to call him out over this.
 
I was thinking what's this fag going to do? Then I remembered.

Chuck Schumer is the cousin of Amy Schumer. He could send in the Osama Bin Laden of comedians. Watch out everyone.
 
Última edición:
I've seen this in other thread but how does
The court was hearing a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals
affect abortions anyway? Don't all doctors need to be certified to perform surgery anyway? Why would other hospitals block abortionists?

I've tried googling it but every result is both partisan and doesn't answer the question. Why is getting "admitting privileges" so difficult?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo