When is Enough ,Enough?

holding up a nomination (not with a gun) is not the same as verbal threats against specific Justices.

Hard to know where lines are drawn nowadays (on both sides)

Republicans "politicized the SC" and there were no "threats " against anyone just a confirmation that there are consequences for there political views of the court instead of processing justice.




P.S. Roberts stayed quiet when trump went after RBG and Sotomayor but no that's ok,like I said hypocrite.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html



But you guys will defend trump ...............you always do ,nothing new.

holding up a nomination (not with a gun) is not the same as verbal threats against specific Justices.

Hard to know where lines are drawn nowadays (on both sides)

My beef is with the Chief Justice calling out Schumer (as is his right when he feels the court is being attacked unfairly).

Where's the beef when Trump insults RBG, Sotomayer, the judge on the Stone/etc. trials, or literally any other judiciary exec Trump has attacked over the years? How about the mexican judge Trump thinks is biased due to his nationality?

Partisanship has invaded the judiciary, this is the world we live in now. Either you have a problem with all of it or you are a part of the problem as well.

My beef is with the Chief Justice calling out Schumer (as is his right when he feels the court is being attacked unfairly).



Where's the beef when Trump insults RBG, Sotomayer, the judge on the Stone/etc. trials, or literally any other judiciary exec Trump has attacked over the years? How about the mexican judge Trump thinks is biased due to his nationality?



Partisanship has invaded the judiciary, this is the world we live in now. Either you have a problem with all of it or you are a part of the problem as well.Roberts did rebuke Trump in 2018 when Trump spoke of the Obama judges.
Back in November 2018, Roberts defended the federal judiciary in a rare rebuke of comments from Trump, saying there are no “Obama judges” as the president claimed.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement distributed by the Supreme Court. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

I cannot speak to why he didn't in the Sotomayor incident.

Schumer's language, to me, was on a far different level though. He cited the two judges saying they will pay, to come back and say it was about elections makes no sense since judges are not subject to election. If he had said your republican cohorts will pay, then thats the elections. Politicians know the meanings of words, and he was very specific in his threat.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

For the record I disagree with Schumer's choice of words. But I don't see what he said as anything worse than the constant barrage of attacks on judges from Trump.

So what was everyone's take on Schumer's speech

imo Schumer was wrong to single out any SCOTUS justice.

Justice Roberts, from what ive seen, I like him. Clarence Thomas imo shouldnt be on the bench, he will twist facts ro interpretation of law to fit whatever predetermined super conservative view he wants. He would vote to over turn Roe v Wade and throw precedent out the window just so his version of America is the only version of America. I think Sotomayor may be his polar equivalent. And equally not qualified imo but she doesnt have a track record yet to judge.

This isnt the first time he has had to respond another branch. I remember he made a public statement in response to trump saying there are Obama justices and Trump justices and Roberts said the SCOTUS is neutral and party bias and there are no trump or Obama judges.

If we are going to discuss Schumer's comments ... I think its fair to ask if you discussed or questioned trump and republican comments re the SCOTUS as well. if you didnt then ... can you honestly do it now and claim objectiveness?

--------------------

McConnell has driven Congress off the cliff and civility and fair play will never come back. For him to hold up the vetting of Garland was .. the last fatal blow.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Now any party can just move the goal post farther back ... if a Republican president nominates a justice for the SCOTUS 2 years before elections ... but Dems hold the Senate, why should they act on it vs just sitting on it.

We were probably already heading down the road of severe partinship but McConnell fast tracked it.

And dont give me the "but the biden rule" crap. Thats a complete strawman and any competent and semi objective person cant argue that with a straight face.

Blue slips - McConnell also killed that. he weaponized the Senate to be the working agent for the Executive branch.

I really dont want to hear any Republicans scream about how the AG or DOJ are supposed to be neutral or how Congress is supposed to be an independent branch and not work exclusively under the direction of the President.

20 years from now .. Texas will be blue, florida will be blue, arizona etc plus the Senate and POTUS will be a Dem ... and you can thank McConnell for single handily removing the checks and balances that existed for over 200 years.

Enjoy it now ... just remember that you were okay with all of this while it was trump and republicans doing it .... but im sure many republicans will be screaming bloody murder 20 years from now.

edit --- and a super extreme left view equally scares me the same as a super right view

My beef is with the Chief Justice calling out Schumer (as is his right when he feels the court is being attacked unfairly).

Where's the beef when Trump insults RBG, Sotomayer, the judge on the Stone/etc. trials, or literally any other judiciary exec Trump has attacked over the years? How about the mexican judge Trump thinks is biased due to his nationality?

Partisanship has invaded the judiciary, this is the world we live in now. Either you have a problem with all of it or you are a part of the problem as well.

Your calling this an attack on them. That's a stretch.

“It’s very obvious,” Trump said at a news conference in India, where he was wrapping up a 36-hour trip. “Justice Ginsburg should [recuse herself] because she went wild during the campaign when I was running."

"Perhaps she was for Hillary Clinton,” Trump said.

“I just don’t know how they cannot recuse themselves from anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related,” the president said. He said Sotomayor – who was appointed by President Barack Obama – is “trying to shame people with perhaps a different view.”

So what was everyone's take on Schumer's speech



Funny how suddenly words actually can be more than just words.....
I believe this is where I am supposed to say get over it snowflakes or something like that. Oh the freaking hypocrisy of you and Chico to overlook all the threatening language Trump has used for years now about folks in the media, muslims, democrats, i mean you can just read his Twitter feed because the list goes on and on and on, and than get rattled by Schumer. Absolutely unreal.

For starters,


Donald J. Trump
[emoji818]
@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!

146K
8:20 AM - Jan 26, 2020

I know, I know. This is different because Obama made him do it or some stupid shit. [emoji23]

This is going to be fun......


Trump had just demanded to know who provided a whistleblower with information about his call with the Ukrainian president, describing that person as “close to a spy” and adding: “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.”

Remember that one?

Funny how suddenly words actually can be more than just words.....
I believe this is where I am supposed to say get over it snowflakes or something like that. Oh the freaking hypocrisy of you and Chico to overlook all the threatening language Trump has used for years now about folks in the media, muslims, democrats, i mean you can just read his Twitter feed because the list goes on and on and on, and than get rattled by Schumer. Absolutely unreal.

I thought threatening unelected Justices would be something we all agreed was wrong.

and to respond to the tweet in the next one, saying a politician has a price to pay, that makes sense to be a political election. Saying a justice, that has no political election in their future, has a price to pay, is much more ominous.

Finally, I have criticized ad nauseaum Trump's tweets, maybe not here but I don't defend him for being a whiny crybaby, and yes it affects the dialog in this country, but this was a specific over the line statement by Schumer, who has his own litany of crybaby moments. And Yes I thought naively, that everyone here would say his statements were outright wrong.