• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

I don't know about inciting violence, but Schumer's statement was clearly addressed directly at the SCOTUS justices and not at Senate Pubs or Republicans et. al. as his office later tried to claim. Senators should not be using that kind of language to directly attack justices by name. However Trump did much the same thing in his earlier attack on RBG and Sotomayor and if Roberts wants to be the umpire of inflammatory political speech he needs to call a consistent strike zone. If anything, the level of tolerance about attacking the judiciary ought to be smaller for the President than for the leader of the minority party in the Senate.
 
Junebug said:
Out of context? Here’s the statement:

"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.”
Click to expand...

The context is that he was a pro-choice rally where Schumer is trying to motivate voters to get out and vote this fall.
 
Deacon923 said:
I don't know about inciting violence, but Schumer's statement was clearly addressed directly at the SCOTUS justices and not at Senate Pubs or Republicans et. al. as his office later tried to claim. Senators should not be using that kind of language to directly attack justices by name. However Trump did much the same thing in his earlier attack on RBG and Sotomayor and if Roberts wants to be the umpire of inflammatory political speech he needs to call a consistent strike zone. If anything, the level of tolerance about attacking the judiciary ought to be smaller for the President than for the leader of the minority party in the Senate.
Click to expand...

sorry, if you take a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, you should be allowed to be criticized for your decisions
 
BarcaDeac said:
sorry, if you take a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, you should be allowed to be criticized for your decisions
Click to expand...

Well, there's a difference between criticizing a judge's legal reasoning and saying that judge will "pay the price" and "won't know what hit" them. Further there is a difference between criticizing a judge's legal reasoning and claiming that the judge is irreversibly biased toward the President because they are Mexican, or because they've been critical of the administration in past decisions.
 
Deacon923 said:
Well, there's a difference between criticizing a judge's legal reasoning and saying that judge will "pay the price" and "won't know what hit" them. Further there is a difference between criticizing a judge's legal reasoning and claiming that the judge is irreversibly biased toward the President because they are Mexican, or because they've been critical of the administration in past decisions.
Click to expand...

The right has made us so familiar with political violence that a politician at a political rally saying the other side will "pay the price" is now considered a threat.
 
Junebug said:
Out of context? Here’s the statement:

"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.”
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh used that specific word during his confirmation. It alone should have disqualified him from being a Justice. He promised retribution to those who had opposed him. It's obscene and disgraceful.
 
Junebug said:
Inciting violence against =\= criticize
Click to expand...

Lol. You post about intentionally misinterpreting Trump on the other thread, and then do it to Schumer in this thread with this snowflake bullshit. And then have the hall to criticize someone for being "dem good, pub bad.". You are a real piece of work.
 
Junebug is afraid of his own shadow but is happy to swing at anyone else.
 
 
Junebug said:
How do you hit a SCOTUS justice without hitting a SCOTUS justice?

Asking for a friend
Click to expand...

In addition to the kavanaugh reference others have mentioned, I take it to mean something along the lines of "keep up the partisanship in the scotus and we will win in November and begin remaking the courts e.g. expand the size and/or, impeach the wildly unqualified judges at all levels that moscow mitch has shepherded through sham confirmations."

Do you need 60 votes to impeach a kavanaugh?
 
Junebug said:
How do you hit a SCOTUS justice without hitting a SCOTUS justice?

Asking for a friend
Click to expand...

you see the word "hit" used all the time when it comes to things like lawsuits..."so and so was hit with legal action" so it seems to have a use in the discourse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top