Since I've known about the case ever since Schumer appeared before the Supreme Court, what you say "you know" is bullshit. But thanks for demonstrating your feeble mind-reading skills for us. Also your spelling skills ("Shumer").
Rightdownthemiddle provided a good explanation.
Originally posted by: Rightdownthemiddle
The hypocracy on both side of the isle in politics is head spinning. Whats really amazing is the fact that the hypocrates keep inciting violence then claim its OK because the other hypocrate did the same thing. There is no doubt however that since the Trump adgenda is being implimented more and more, the democrates have ratcheted up the threats. It used to be that they would only disrupt a right wingers dinner or protest in front of their homes and buisnesses. Now there threatening to unleash the whirlwind.
Actually...nothing Schumer said was "inciting violence." He said that the justices would pay a price--which doesn't mean he was threatening to shoot them. He obviously meant a political price. Only Trump threatens to shoot people he doesn't like (on at least six documented occasions).
The real trend to be concerned about is how conservative pundits distort everything that Democrats say. No rational person could say that Schumer was physically threatening the judges. But it makes for a lovely Sean Hannity talking point.
But you want to know the most striking difference? Schumer apologized. Have Trump or his lackeys and ball-lickers ever apologized for anything Trump has said? NO. It's just "Trump being Trump" or some other such tommyrot.
So let's cut the Trump-style false equivalence argument. Trump's language and behavior are horrid, and bitching about one thing Schumer said doesn't change that one bit.
The foregoing asinine diatrabe by Kevin is a classic example of liberal rational
KevinLewis excuses Schumer: "Actually...nothing Schumer said was 'inciting violence.' He said that the justices would pay a price--which doesn't mean he was threatening to shoot them. He obviously meant a political price."
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life to ajudicate matters brought before them. This is precisely so that they need not fear those who hold opposing political views.
So, exactly what "political price" could Schumer compel them to pay ?
Originally posted by: Don
KevinLewis excuses Schumer: "Actually...nothing Schumer said was 'inciting violence.' He said that the justices would pay a price--which doesn't mean he was threatening to shoot them. He obviously meant a political price."
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life to ajudicate matters brought before them. This is precisely so that they need not fear those who hold opposing political views.
So, exactly what "political price" could Schumer compel them to pay ?
The perception of the Court by lower courts, as well as by those potential litigants, could affect what cases come before it.
To clarify--if the Supreme Court is perceived as a conservative-leaning Trump rubber stamp (which is what Republicans want it to be, of course), then the public's perception of it will suffer. To give a specific example, if the Court winds up overturning Roe v. Wade or destroying Obamacare, it will wind up being hated by the majority of the public--and though you're correct, they're supposed to be above the fray, there will be political fallout. They don't like public criticism any more than anyone else does.
And it's not up to me to "excuse" Schumer. He's a free citizen, with the right of free speech. I merely pointed out that accusations against him of suggesting violence against the members of the court are factually incorrect.
Originally posted by: David Miller
The foregoing asinine diatrabe by Kevin is a classic example of liberal rational
The foregoing stupid little insult by Stalker, containing two spelling errors in only thirteen words, is a classic example of the feeble intellectual capacity of Trumpers in general and Stalker in particular.
Sgt Kevin Stedanko of the punctuation police has, once again, found an error in spelling. What to do? Anything but being forced to read more asinine lies and filth expoused from the non stop insult machine known as Der Fuhrer Lewis. Please, please not that!
Originally posted by: Rightdownthemiddle
Its a case in Louisiana that will make abortion clinics have admiting rights at local hospitals to provide treatment if something goes wrong. Anti abortion groups claim this is a saftey issue and protects the womens health. The pro choice side claims that since the abortion clinics cant afford it they will be forced to close which is what in effect the anti abortion side wants.
That is mostly my understanding too, and I don't see why that is controversial. The only difference I thought was that the individual abortion provider (hopefully a Doctor, but not necessarily the way things go in these clinics) must have admitting rights in a local hospital.
Again, it seems to be more about protecting women than anything else. How can this be controversial as to have that lunatic Shumer to go off the way he did?
Kevin, I want the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. Antonin Scolia stated that while he disagreed with abortion, it was not unconstitutional. He went on to say that if you disagree with abortion, change the Constitution. That's the type of jude that I want. Liberal judges want to legislate from the bunch.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin, I want the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. Antonin Scolia stated that while he disagreed with abortion, it was not unconstitutional. He went on to say that if you disagree with abortion, change the Constitution. That's the type of jude that I want. Liberal judges want to legislate from the bunch.
Assuming that what you meant was "from the bench," do you have any support whatsoever for that broad generalization, or are you just expressing your ideological beliefs?
Don't forget, the current abortion law challenge before the court was brought by CONSERVATIVES. They're the ones trying to change the Constitution. Scalia (not "Scolia") was expressing the opinion that Roe v. Wade had already settled the question of whether or not abortion was unconstitutional.
What makes your statement so stupid is that the liberal Supreme Court judges agree with him wholeheartedly.
You love to make broad, sweeping statements about what liberals think and want, and those statements are almost never even remotely correct. You've shown repeatedly that you don't even know what liberalism is.
