Schumer unloads on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh at abortion rights rally: 'You will pay the price!'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-unloads-on-gorsuch-kavanaugh-at-abortion-rights-rally-warns-they-will-pay-the-price-for-awful-decisions

A fired-up Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer D-N.Y., appeared to issue a vague warning toward Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, during a rally held as the court heard arguments in a high-profile abortion case.

At the rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer noted that the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, is the first “major” abortion case since President Trump’s court picks have been on the bench. The dispute, dealing with restrictions over who can perform abortions, involves a Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016, before either Trump justice was on the Supreme Court and before conservatives held a 5-4 majority.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer warned. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Video of the remarks quickly circulated on social media, with Republicans casting the warning as a threat against two sitting Supreme Court justices.

Lest anyone think both parties are the same…

5 Likes

Townhall, could be seen as a threat:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/03/04/chuck-schumer-issues-a-threat-against-kavanuagh-gorsuch-you-will-pay-a-price-n2563181

1 Like

BTW, this bill was sponsored by a Pro-Life Democrat in Louisiana, Katrina Jackson.

6 Likes

Since when is it the right of any member of Congress or the Senate to threaten a Supreme Court Justice? Since when is it the right of anyone to threaten any legally appointed judge?

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Just what does he intend to do to these Justices? He didn’t even have the courage to specify.

Just one more reason people like Schumer need to be voted out of office.

8 Likes

Isn’t this a pretence? Doctors have to be licsenced. Why would abortion doctors require more than any other doctor?

Chief Justice Roberts latter reprimanded Schumer for his remarks, which crossed all lines of decency and civility.

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Roberts said: “This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’ 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.”

8 Likes

Neither Trump or Schumer get that the Supreme Court is not beholden to them. They are appointed for life and have no reason for party loyalty. As sworn justices, they are supposed to consider the law, nothing else. In this case, whether admitting privileges are a reasonable requirement for that level of medical procedure. That is pretty much it. If it is, then the law will stand. If they decide it is an abortion-stopping measure only, it will be over-turned, as Roe has not been overturned at this time. All this hope Republicans are putting in the Supreme Court misses what the Court is, I am afraid.

1 Like

With 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade, it seems the whirlwind has already been released. Blackmun foolishly thought he could put the matter to rest with a tenuous SCOTUS decision. Instead he released the whirlwind and ultimately turned abortion into the only issue that mattered for Schumer’s party.

4 Likes

Lol…I think President Trump and Schumer get it. President Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do (I think we are at 192 federal judges now, including flipping the 9th Circuit, besides the two SC).

Schumer’s rant has been building up for quite some time because there is nothing he can do about it.

3 Likes

My suspicions are different. Mr. Schumer’s political incontinence is a tactical move and a part of a much larger strategy. If a member of the USSC responds angrily when openly threatened in a way that might bring scandal to the bench, that justice could be impeached - and that’s exactly what the Schumer wing of American politics is hoping for - they love impeachment proceedings. It’s how they govern. They already believe that the executive branch should kowtow to the will of their single-party legislatures (the so-called “uniparty”). If a president refuses to obey, he must be impeached. They are the only ones fit to govern. For these increasingly venal politicians, our country would be better served if a president was more like a prime minister who could be removed at the whim of their parliament. So too with the supreme court. If the justices will not serve their interests - and if they can provoke them with their threats - those justices can be impeached. One by one. Once the process begins, it’ll be hard to stop. Our federal legislatures - especially the House of Representatives - are now legislating by litigating. They use enormous power to intimidate, threaten and silence their opposition. It hasn’t quite worked the way they wish (at least not yet), but that won’t stop them from trying. Eventually, they believe, they will succeed. At least, that’s my suspicion.

10 Likes

I can’t speak for other pro-life people regarding the Supreme Court justices but I don’t think the Supreme Court picks are important because they’ll overturn Roe but because they’re less likely to restrict a state’s ability to limit abortion. Multiple times during her campaign, Clinton stated she would pick justices that would protect abortion rights and specifically mentioned the limits some states have put in place, as if her picks would vote against such restrictions no matter what.

Many pro-choice people have a problem with the heart-beat bills. Take a moment to think about that. There are people who have a problem with a law that basically says, “If you can detect a living human being’s heartbeat, you cannot actively kill that human.”

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of them don’t see it that way.

Part of changing hearts and minds is enacting laws that recognize the humanity of fetuses and fetal rights. It challenges people who do not recognize that humanity. It has been and will continue to be a long conflict but I’m of the opinion we should take every inch we get. The other side is constantly working to dehumanize humans who are in the earliest stages of development and expand the legalization of the for-profit killing of those humans. After-birth abortions have even been mentioned with little or subdued condemnation.

5 Likes

Louisiana wants their abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital. This is to have an in-place mechanism to deal directly with complications of killing babies in the womb.

Maximus1 . . . .

Doctors have to be licsenced. Why would abortion doctors require more than any other doctor?

Because they are doing the out-patient surgery that has inherent complications.

Deadly complications like your scraper or probe or baby-suction-device going through a woman’s womb and right into her intestines of that woman, now leaking bacteria-laden fecal matter into her abdominal cavity.

So when these things occur, you are expected to be able to provide at least some advanced care for those procedures/surgeries that you do. (Or you should not do them.)

Not just start to make phone calls and look for
other doctors that can
take care of YOUR complications
when a woman is laying on YOUR operating table in extreme danger of dying.

Abortion is unethical anyway. Without hospital privileges killing babies within the womb is even MORE unethical.

But a lot of the abortion docs are the bottom of the barrel (which in some cases is part of WHY they are abortion “doctors”) and are not skilled enough (have bad records) to get hospital privileges.

So this law is going to be a problem for the worst of the worst of those “physicians”.

So it is irrelevant if it is a “pretence” or not.
The woman whose baby you (the abortionist) just murdered,
still needs emergent care when complications occur.
And complications DO occur.

That’s why.

12 Likes

I understand what you are saying but why would privileges matter for an outpatient procedure if the state authorized the outpatient facility?
There is state liscence to perform a procedure. Whatever it is. That is the basis of a doctor’s ability to perform it.
A Hospital credential board that chooses to give privileges does not remove a doctor’s ability to perform in a licsenced facility that admits him.
If a patient is transfered due to an emergency it is routine to have a different specialist handle it. So I don’t get it. I would have to read it.
You mention ethics. That is a different state board that decides that. A private hospital committee that chooses to extend privileges can apply any standard it feels like. Or just decide no on any basis.
I am speculating because I haven’t read the record.

Maximus1 . . . .

I understand what you are saying but why would privileges matter for an outpatient procedure if the state authorized the outpatient facility?

Authorized or not, surgical complications occur.

The state is evidently raising the bar for licences to do these things.

A Hospital credential board that chooses to give privileges does not remove a doctor’s ability to perform in a licsenced facility that admits him.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here.

They are going to review a doctors record within a hospital, before they grant admitting privileges to a physician.

If the abortionist has a bad record, as many abortionists do, the hospital people reviewing the abortionist’s record will deny them admitting privileges.

They won’t be able to work in a given hospital.

If a patient is transfered due to an emergency it is routine to have a different specialist handle it.

Yeah. So what? That doesn’t mean the abortionist shouldn’t follow the patient and initiate care.

WHO is the abortionist going to refer to?

The ER doc? He doesn’t know what went on.

Did the abortionist take out an artery? (Call a general surgeon.)
Did he perforate her uterus? (Call an OB Gyn specialist.)
Did urine come through his abortion suction catheter implying he perforated the bladder too? (Call a urologist.)
Something else?

He doesn’t know.

Now he’s got a gal in his ER with her blood pressure falling out.

What is he supposed to do?

Call the OB Gyn guy?

If the OB Gyn guy gets her to the OR and she has a perforated colon now what?

Call the General Surgeon. Or the colon and rectal surgeon. Or somebody!!!

Try to fix it yourself even though that is not your area of expertise?

All this while the gal is on the operating table, under anesthesia, with barely obtainable blood pressure,
hollering staff,
and an OB that is scrubbed in, now has to scrub out to talk to call around to find a general surgeon who is not already taking care of his own patients??!

All while this gal is dying.

Then lab is trying to find a vein so they can type her for a transfusion, but adequate veins are impossible to find because she has almost no blood pressure?

And the abortion advocates are going to worry about POLITICS?? Really??

2 Likes

The state licsences the outpatient facility. What is added that is necessary if a licsenced doctor has privileges at some hospital?
The state licsences the doctor, if he can legally touch the patient what does a credential board do to that question, can he touch her.
All they can say is not here.
So I am not sure how privileges is medically necessary.

Seeing as how this was about a rally from progressives who are scared to death to lose their precious right to kill children, I find your statement odd. If anything, I would have said “all this fear Democrats are seeing in the Supreme Court misses what the Court is, I am afraid.” Why invoke Republicans here when it was liberal protesters and a Democratic Senator in play?

9 Likes

Maximus1 . . .

What is added if a licsenced doctor has privileges at some hospital?

The expectation that the abortion “doctor” will be doing the initial cares and the consultation referrals to the appopriate specialists, right there in that hospital instead of dumping this on an ER doctor who does not know the patient.

And when seconds count, figuring it all out, takes precious time away from that dying woman.

1 Like

Rasoleil . . .

All of a sudden, Republicans get all whiney and upset
when their delicate wittle fee fee’s are hurt,
but when Trump attacks anyone, crickets…They talk from both sides of their mouths.

So do you think its OK in both instances?

Or NOT OK in either instance?

2 Likes

You seem to question whether an outpatient facility should be licsenced. Because a transfer to a hospital is going to have all of your " split timing" issues regardless of privileges. New doctors in a hospital are new either way.

Rasoleil . . .

No! Certainly not OK in both instances.

OK.

I want to hold you to your own standards then.

I want to see where you have criticized Schumer.
You have been on this thread for awhile.

Certainly you must have expressed equal outrage against Schumer.

Would you mind linking me to your post of that please?

Thanks in advance.

3 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.