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."
 
Schumer never surprises me. As long as I've known he's always had some sort of grandstanding stunt to pull. He's just joining the crowd of shrieking harpies for practically losing at everything the past 3.5 years.
 
I've seen this in other thread but how does 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?

Basically it's at least a low-key affiliation with the hospital. Which in the places in question really isn't going to happen because then that hospital would have someone affiliated with them 'providing abortion services', and ain't nobody want that trouble in Louisiana.
 
I've seen this in other thread but how does 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?
There were a lot of cases on the west coast where doctors would botch abortions and dump patients so being able to admit to a hospital makes total sense.

The flip side is that many hospitals are run by the Catholic church and refused to grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors.

The flip side of that is some pretty common sense shit Democrats have fought hard against like requreing abortion clinics to have door frames wide enough to accommodate an EMS gurney which is just common sense that any medical office should be required to have
 
Chief Justice Roberts strikes me as a genuinely straight-shooting, middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I don't know what Chuckles thinks he's going to accomplish here, but threatening the one guy in the country who seems to be able to rise above petty partisan politics is about the biggest "not a good look" you could possibly commit. Democrats are really melting down over their precious Roe v. Wade potentially being limited.
 
There were a lot of cases on the west coast where doctors would botch abortions and dump patients so being able to admit to a hospital makes total sense.

The flip side is that many hospitals are run by the Catholic church and refused to grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors.

The flip side of that is some pretty common sense shit Democrats have fought hard against like requreing abortion clinics to have door frames wide enough to accommodate an EMS gurney which is just common sense that any medical office should be required to have

Basically it's at least a low-key affiliation with the hospital. Which in the places in question really isn't going to happen because then that hospital would have someone affiliated with them 'providing abortion services', and ain't nobody want that trouble in Louisiana.
Ah thanks. So while it could be used to circumvent Roe v Wade there's still legitimate reasons for the law.

As an aside, I heard about this before because of Missouri only allowing one abortion clinic because of this. We do have many catholic hospitals but they are a def. minority - 20% maybe? I find it hard to believe that this is solely from Catholic bullying.
 
Yeah, while abortion clinics really could use a heavy layer of oversight, a lot of this is sideways shit to just ban abortions in the state, you need to get zoned by the local county who then ignores you, you need to be in XX feet of a hospital but there's no land available in that area. Stuff like that.
 
Ah thanks. So while it could be used to circumvent Roe v Wade there's still legitimate reasons for the law.

As an aside, I heard about this before because of Missouri only allowing one abortion clinic because of this. We do have many catholic hospitals but they are a def. minority - 20% maybe? I find it hard to believe that this is solely from Catholic bullying.

Ennnngh. This is more like what XYZ is talking about. It's a rule that sounds reasonable on paper but is really 100% designed to just make it impossible to operate.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but the intent isn't really patient safety or whatever they say. It's a ban they (might) be able to get past the courts, clever in its own way.
 
Ennnngh. This is more like what XYZ is talking about. It's a rule that sounds reasonable on paper but is really 100% designed to just make it impossible to operate.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but the intent isn't really patient safety or whatever they say. It's a ban they (might) be able to get past the courts, clever in its own way.
Yeah, while abortion clinics really could use a heavy layer of oversight, a lot of this is sideways shit to just ban abortions in the state, you need to get zoned by the local county who then ignores you, you need to be in XX feet of a hospital but there's no land available in that area. Stuff like that.
Actually I just looked this up - it's the same shit eye clinics and plastic surgeons need to have to operate. The Mccdonalds tier eye doctors in Walmart have greater oversight! Whether we should regulate Mc-Eye Clinics less or reproductive health services more is a question I'll leave to the reader lmao
 
Chief Justice Roberts strikes me as a genuinely straight-shooting, middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I don't know what Chuckles thinks he's going to accomplish here, but threatening the one guy in the country who seems to be able to rise above petty partisan politics is about the biggest "not a good look" you could possibly commit. Democrats are really melting down over their precious Roe v. Wade potentially being limited.
Roberts has given in to pressure campaigns before, that's how we ended up with the individual mandate as Schrodinger's Tax.
 
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

And many times Supreme Court judges have made up complete bullshit to support their partisan agendas (judicial activism). Roberts himself has been known to do that. I'd rather have more legislative authority than judicial.
 
Edit: I completely misread the article.

Anyway, party politics is alive and well in the courts and anyone who would argue that is delusional. Unlike congress, they choose their battles.
 
Última edición:
I can't wait for Roberts to be completely ignored. Oh the salt.

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?

Andrew Jackson said it best; "You've made your ruling, let's see you enforce it."
 
Based Chuck Schumer
Civil war plz hurry up already.
His statements are too generalized and non specific to be considered an actual threat. Did the court forget about the 1rst amendment?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo