Schumer's dogwhistle

In the world we inhabit, the one in which a Sanders campaign volunteer attempted assassination of republican congressmen, Schumer thought it would be a good idea to stand before a crowd of abortion activists and scream threats to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch unless they changed their views on the constitutionality of federal law on the topic.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mcconnell-to-hold-schumers-feet-to-the-fire-for-threatening-gorsuch-kavanaugh/

Comments

  • Censure is the absolute least that should happen to Cryin' Chuck.
  • What’s amazing is how many people I’ve run into that know what the actual issue before the court actually is.

    Care to guess how many?

    I’ll give you a hint…
    Until about 2000 years ago you would have had trouble expressing it.
  • The standing argument is pretty funny.
  • I haven’t looked deeply enough into it to know what the argument over standing even IS.

    I just think that the entire issue is absurd.

    Alabama: “Y’all gonna need to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles in case something goes wrong.”

    Morons: YOU HATE WOMEN!
  • Rashida Taliban threatened to not have sex with men who don't want to let her have an abortion.

    Um, okay. Deal!

    https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1235319094234304514
  • “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. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    While I certainly don't mind a Dem style kerfuffle over something a Dem says I don't think the actual comments were that bad or truly threatening.
  • "Rashida Taliban threatened to not have sex with men who don't want to let her have an abortion.

    Um, okay. Deal!"



    Tool will be along to tell you you would stand a chance with her.
  • JIMP wrote, "While I certainly don't mind a Dem style kerfuffle over something a Dem says I don't think the actual comments were that bad or truly threatening. "

    If I said that about a judge, they'd take my license.

    Nak wrote, "I haven’t looked deeply enough into it to know what the argument over standing even IS. "

    The question is whether a doc who performs abortions has standing to bring an action against a regulation that facilitates prompt medical attention in the event it is needed. They have gotten standing in the past with the reasoning that they sufficiently represent the interests of their patients.

    Where the interests of patients are arguably at odds with the party bringing the challenge, the standing of the challenger becomes an issue.
  • 2.FOH: "Tool will be along to tell you you would stand a chance with her."

    And I'm fine with that.
  • Zuk - "If I said that about a judge, they'd take my license."

    That's interesting, on what basis?
  • It's a violation of the professional ethics in my state to publicly comment on the judiciary in a manner that unduly reduces public confidence in it. So, a lawyer who dislikes a judge's decision and says "That judge isn't just dumb, but he was paid off by the winning party" is going to suffer a suspension after the disciplinary counsel is done with him.

    Regular people have 1st Am. and 5th Am. rights lawyers lack.
  • I think it’s also a question of style. Part of the reason that Trump freaks out so many establishment times is because he breaks the rules about style.


    So if I was a lawyer and I said;

    “Well, we are of course very disappointed in the Judge’s and vehemently disagree with both his application of existing statutory and case law as well as whether or not some of the case law was truly on point.

    But, that is our system. We have our day in court and we argue our positions vigorously. At the end, the judge makes a ruling and we can all go home comforted that at least in our country we don’t need to worry that the judge was unduly influenced by his political loyalties or financial interests.“


    And viola! I just called the judge a clueless, ignorant, bought and paid for asshole and all he can do about it is not invite me to those fancy parties.
  • I heard Nina Totenberg on NPR yesterday. She was asked about this event responded that it all started with DJT "attacking" Sotomayor and Ginsberg. DJT attacked neither justice, but did call for each to recuse herself from cases involving him because of the bias each has shown toward him. Totenberg then lamented the lack of anyone in the court to tell Roberts that Roberts should have publicly criticized DJT's recusal statement too.

    "You will pay the price if you don't vote my way on a pending case" does not differ only stylistically from a call for recusal. There is no interpretation of that statement that is legitimate commentary or advocacy. "That's just how Bronx immigrants speak" is a poor excuse.
  • That’s how Democrats speak.
  • That wasn't a dogwhistle; it was a bullhorn.
  • I've never enjoyed the way that Totenberg delivers her completely biased opinions as facts.
Sign In or Register to comment.