[Vacuum7]

Chuck Schumer, the DEFENDER OF HUMANITY, and Senator from New York, presented himself amongst a rowdy crowd in front of the Supreme Court and threatened BY NAME two Supreme Court Justices in a heroic defense of his right to kill babies (they call them unborn, a more sanitized term). Schumer lashed-out at the President Trump appointed Justices and suggested there would be repercussions for them if they tried to take away the left's Federal right to murder babies and the wild-eyed mob erupted in celebration: Mob dynamics on full display for all to see. Schumer is such an ALL AMERICAN BOY SCOUT for this celebrated cause.

[talaniman]

Don't like it when the opposition to your causes and views talk as much crap as you do, do ya?

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: Don't like it when the opposition is rabid in the defense of their "RIGHT TO KILL" babies but shows an equally rabid defense for PREVENTING THE KILLING OF DEATH ROW INMATES: YOU GOT THIS THING ARSE BACKWARDS!!! The dichotomy cannot be reconciled....And, it has nothing to do with me not liking the crap slung by "the other side", as you say: It has EVERYTHING to do with the "other side's (whomever they are, irrespective of politics) virulent endorsement for the killing of babies: DON'T YOU FIND IT THE LEAST BIT IRONIC THAT THOSE WHO ARE SO FOR THE MURDERING OF BABIES WERE ALL BABIES WHO WERE ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND NOT MURDERED? The argument is irreconcilable by the Pro-Baby Murdering Gang.

[tomder55]

Tal I see ;you are cool with Schumer threatening violence on judges . Here is what he said . "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."


It is not just Schmucky. Elizabeth (sitting bull chips ) sucker punched Roberts during the impeachment trial forcing him to read her question which questioned his legitimacy . Sonya Sotomayor said the conservative judges were BIAS in favor of Trump . When Trump implied a bias ;Roberts was quick to defend SCOTUS and say there was no such a thing as an Obama judge or a Trump judge .

But the Schmuckster's comments come close to inciting violence . Robert's reply ...... "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

The American Bar Association chimed in ....
"The American Bar Association is deeply troubled by today's statements from the Senate Minority Leader threatening two sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over their upcoming votes in a pending case," "Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats—whether real or allegorical. Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable."

Well I wouldn't go that far . Justices are not gods . They are not infallible . But implied threats of violence do go too far . Schmucky is a member of the NY Bar Assc . Would it be inappropriate to disbar him ? Maybe .... But it would be appropriate to sanction him.

[talaniman]

Talaniman: Don't like it when the opposition is rabid in the defense of their "RIGHT TO KILL" babies but shows an equally rabid defense for PREVENTING THE KILLING OF DEATH ROW INMATES: YOU GOT THIS THING ARSE BACKWARDS!!! The dichotomy cannot be reconciled....And, it has nothing to do with me not liking the crap slung by "the other side", as you say: It has EVERYTHING to do with the "other side's (whomever they are, irrespective of politics) virulent endorsement for the killing of babies: DON'T YOU FIND IT THE LEAST BIT IRONIC THAT THOSE WHO ARE SO FOR THE MURDERING OF BABIES WERE ALL BABIES WHO WERE ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND NOT MURDERED? The argument is irreconcilable by the Pro-Baby Murdering Gang.

I think you are lumping one group with a particular cause, with another group with their own cause, and while some members from both causes may indeed intersect, lumping them together may not be accurate. Be it one side or the other. How can a pro lifer be for capital punishment to follow your logic. Or even be against taking responsibility for those lives they purport to be so precious to them?

[jlisenbe]

Tal I see ;you are cool with Schumer threatening violence on judges . Here is what he said . "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."

You have to remember rule #1. It's OK as long as it's being done by a liberal democrat.

How can a pro lifer be for capital punishment to follow your logic.

Please tell me you did not ask such a ludicrous and outrageous question. To lump the completely defenseless and innocent unborn in with mass murderers is pretty weird. Surely the advancement of a political agenda is not worth the abandonment of all reason.

[talaniman]

@Tom AND JL.

Geez after 3 years of the dufus's soaring nasty rhetoric on a vast scale unprecedented in history, a bit of colorful rhetoric by a normally cool guy has conservatives in a bunch? Sorry guys, that dog don't hunt, nor does the inciting violence junk or disbarring Schumer for his political rhetoric.

The dufus set the anything goes pace, and repubs abided it, so spare me the fake outrage.

Please tell me you did not ask such a ludicrous and outrageous question. To lump the completely defenseless and innocent unborn in with mass murderers is pretty weird. Surely the advancement of a political agenda is not worth the abandonment of all reason.

See how you changed capital punishment to mass murderers? Not surprising for the guy that saves the innocent unborn, but balks at the idea of society helping them after you saved them. Not surprising at all.

[jlisenbe]

See how you changed capital punishment to mass murderers?

Well let's see here. Mass murderers are frequently the target of capital punishment, but if it makes you feel better to be comparing the most innocent and defenseless of our society with those who merely murdered ONE person, then that's still on you.

Not surprising for the guy that saves the innocent unborn, but balks at the idea of society helping them after you saved them. Not surprising at all.

Oh spare me your usual holier than thou nonsense. Between the two of us, I'll put my record of helping children up against yours every day and twice on Sunday. Your drumbeat of wanting to feel superior because you are willing to force OTHERS to help the poor got old and plainly fake a long time ago.

[talaniman]

Well let's see here. Mass murderers are frequently the target of capital punishment, but if it makes you feel better to be comparing the most innocent and defenseless of our society with those who merely murdered ONE person, then that's still on you.

I compare nothing and I thought I was very clear separating them as different issues. Maybe I was not.

Oh spare me your usual holier than thou nonsense. Between the two of us, I'll put my record of helping children up against yours every day and twice on Sunday. Your drumbeat of wanting to feel superior because you are willing to force OTHERS to help the poor got old and plainly fake a long time ago.

I fully recognize differences of opinion, but the VOTE has been taken and YOU will be forced by your state to help those in need and that has nothing to do with whose superior and whose not, since we both just have differing positions.

Seems it's a bigger deal to you than me, and that's okay too. So play your bass and I'll beat my drum and we both dance to our own rhythms. You know how it goes, if you can't dance together, you dance apart.