Schumer declares an open armed revolt against the SCOTUS.

Author: Greyparrot ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 62
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    In a stunning move of unity, Schumer offered benevolent threats against the SCOTUS if they did not rule in his favor.


    “Justices know,” Chief Justice Roberts said in his statement, “that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, but they are also dangerous.”
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,145
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    John Roberts better not become the new Kennedy because of these threats
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    Here is the exact quote which, we should note, GP carefully fails to cite:

    "We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. 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.  The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans, who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you’re going to be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far right? You’re gone in November.
    -Chuck Schumer at a March 4th pro-abortion rally.

    Let's be sure to notice that the speech only seems threatening when stripped of context:

    “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.”

    Schumer clarified that context from the Senate floor just a few hours later:

    "Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to," Schumer said Thursday morning. "My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose."
    Which GP irresponsibly reports as "open armed revolt against the SCOTUS."

    GP should justify his insertion of "revolt" and particularly "armed" into the story.  If GP can't show where Chuck Schumer called for the use of weapons against the Supreme Court, then GP must:

    • apologize to his fellow DARTers for authoring fake news and
    • request that the Mods take down this partisan accusation as inflammatory, defamatory and false.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    You can have whatever opinion on what the Schumer quote "YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE" means, and I would never call for your censorship, even if your opinions directly attack the 1st amendment on holding an opinion of your beloved political leaders.

    Exactly what price do you think a SCOTUS Judge should face? Schumer didn't say the GOP would pay the price, he directly addressed two sitting Supreme Court Justices BY NAME.

    Maybe you should be asking Schumer to apologize to your fellow Darters.

    Maybe you should be calling for Schumer's censure for his dangerous incitement to action.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    John Roberts better not become the new Kennedy because of these threats.

    Or the shooting of Scalise.

    The left has been violent and totally fucked up in the last 4 years.

    Nothing is apparently off-limits when there is government power to be grabbed. The media sure enjoys the chaos.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Do you think Chief Justice Roberts should personally apologize to you for calling your beloved Schumer's statements dangerous?

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    You can have whatever opinion on what the Schumer quote "YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE" means, and I would never call for your censorship you constitutional 1st amendment hater.
    Straw Man.  I did not suggest that GP does not retain a constitutional right to invent fake news headlines as a substitute for rational argument, only that he has a responsibility to his fellow DARTers not to manufacture inciteful bullshit and pretend to report it as news- a responsibility that GP regularly fails to live up to.   GP should apologize and request that his post be removed as false.

    There is no honest analysis of the statement, "you will pay the price" that implies revolution or weaponry.  Those aspects were invented by GP out of whole cloth and may not be justified as reasonable opinion.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    Do you think Chief Justice Roberts should personally apologize to you for calling your beloved Schumer's statements dangerous?

    Red herring.  Chief Justice Roberts did not make up lies about "armed revolt," GP did.  GP should apologize to DART for making shit up and passing it on as news.  I am not looking for any apology personally.


  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot
    how do positions appointed for life which are suppose to be a-political pay a political price?  oh I know, he's full of sh1t, horrible attempt to justify and backtrack.
    calling out 2 specifically by name?  Knowing the protests and threats against Kavanaugh and his family this is something someone in his position should do?
    How anyone can come to this p.o.s. person's defense is appauling.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Every post "The Oro" posts is a strawman.

    I suggested that "The Oro" does not understand the constitutional right to hold an opinion on fake news headlines as a substitute for rational argument, only that "The Oro" has a responsibility to his fellow DARTers not to manufacture inciteful bullshit and pretend to report "the GP" opinions are news- a strawman argument that "The Oro" regularly lives up to.  "The Oro"  should apologize and request that all his strawmen posts be removed as false.

    There is no honest analysis of the statement, "you will pay the price" that implies revolution or weaponry from "The Oro".  Those aspects "The Oro" invented out of whole cloth and may not be justified as a reasonable opinion, as "The Oro" continues to strawman opinions as fact.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    What the FUCK is a "whirlwind" supposed to mean if not VIOLENCE?
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,145
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @oromagi
    Simple yes or no question. Did Schumer threaten Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @oromagi
    I think that “armed revolt” might be a bit of a stretch. But he is 100% lying in saying that he meant SCOTUS judges would suffer “political consequences”. And considering how militant people can be about this issue, calling it a “right” and “healthcare” it is very likely that someone could construe this as requesting violence.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Every post "The Oro" posts is a strawman.

    I suggested that "The Oro" does not understand the constitutional right to hold an opinion on fake news headlines as a substitute for rational argument, only that "The Oro" has a responsibility to his fellow DARTers not to manufacture inciteful bullshit and pretend to report "the GP" opinions are news- a strawman argument that "The Oro" regularly lives up to.  "The Oro"  should apologize and request that all his strawmen posts be removed as false.

    There is no honest analysis of the statement, "you will pay the price" that implies revolution or weaponry from "The Oro".  Those aspects "The Oro" invented out of whole cloth and may not be justified as a reasonable opinion, as "The Oro" continues to strawman opinions as fact.
    Rubber-glue.  GP is just mirroring the argument without regard for content.  GP has no justification for inserting "armed revolt."



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    GP has no justification for inserting "armed revolt."

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @bmdrocks21
    What do you think Schumer meant by a "whirlwind" if not violence, by arms if necessary?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    Normal people don’t use that word. I’d figure he may be referring to unilaterally attempting to impeach them both or something. Bernie wants to “rotate courts”. Some scummy partisan whirlwind
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    What the FUCK is a "whirlwind" supposed to mean if not VIOLENCE?
    In fact, it refers to one of the oldest of Hebrew proverbs from The Book of Hosea 8:7:

    "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind"

    Bible readers will recognize Paul's echoing of this proverb in his letter to the Galatians 6:7:

    "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

    Wiktionary says:

    sow the wind, reap the whirlwind [Proverb]
    1. Every decision has consequences; a person's actions will come back to them; if one starts trouble or takes actions in spite of the discontent they cause, one will incur negative consequences.
    Synonyms
    See also
    No violence is implicit.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,928
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Hopefully, if you are not high on the autism scale, and if you are, I apologize in advance, you can clearly see the rhetoric as a call to action for a few crazy people waiting for a reason to act.

    Judge Roberts said so.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @ILikePie5
    --> @oromagi
    Simple yes or no question. Did Schumer threaten Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

    no.

    threat has at least two meanings:

    threat [noun]
    1. An expression of intent to injure or punish another.
    2. An indication of potential or imminent danger.
    If you are asking did Schumer express an intent to hurt Gorsuch or Kavanaugh the answer is an obvious, laughable no.

    Schumer indicated potential danger but the object of that danger was explicit:  "We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans"  NOT Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.  The nature of that potential danger was also explicitly political: "You hear that over there on the far right? You’re gone in November.


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    These comments are very, very, dangerous for another reason.

    The Supreme court is the final say on issues of Law. An legal decision of the SCOTUS cannot be an "attack". What is Schumer saying? That his view of abortion is superior to the SCOTUS?

    Are democrats rejecting the concept of a SCOTUS? Is he saying that a SCOTUS decision can be ignored if they disagree with it?

    I think he should be sacked from the Senate.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    I think that “armed revolt” might be a bit of a stretch.
    We agree that GP has failed to substantiate his characterization.

    But he [Schumer] is 100% lying in saying that he meant SCOTUS judges would suffer “political consequences”.
    How do you interpret otherwise?  Schumer specifically couched the sow/reap metaphor in political terms:
    sow:
    Republican legislatures take away rights.
    If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh go forward with these decisions
    reap:
    Trump and Senate Republicans will gone in November

    And considering how militant people can be about this issue, calling it a “right” and “healthcare” it is very likely that someone could construe this as requesting violence.
    Which is why Schumer clarified his comment to specifically exclude violence.  We should call on GP to likewise exclude violence, which he has manufactured by saying Schumer has "declared armed revolt."  The truth is he did the opposite this morning.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @bmdrocks21
    I think that “armed revolt” might be a bit of a stretch.
    We agree that GP has failed to substantiate his characterization.

    But he [Schumer] is 100% lying in saying that he meant SCOTUS judges would suffer “political consequences”.
    How do you interpret otherwise?  Schumer specifically couched the sow/reap metaphor in political terms:
    sow:
    Republican legislatures take away rights.
    If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh go forward with these decisions
    reap:
    Trump and Senate Republicans will gone in November

    And considering how militant people can be about this issue, calling it a “right” and “healthcare” it is very likely that someone could construe this as requesting violence.
    Which is why Schumer clarified his comment to specifically exclude violence.  We should call on GP to likewise exclude violence, which he has manufactured by saying Schumer has "declared armed revolt."  The truth is he did the opposite this morning.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,354
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Normal people don’t use that word. I’d figure he may be referring to unilaterally attempting to impeach them both or something.
    Since it is a Hebrew proverb, Jewish people may use the phrase more often although I come across the phrase very regularly.  For example, the famous movie about the Scopes Trial, "Inherit the Wind" refers to a variation on the same proverb.  I'd say that normal people regularly use that word.

    Case in point, Brett Kavanaugh in his opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept 2018:

    "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

    "You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwinds. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking."
    A year and a half later, Schumer is parroting Kavanaugh's statement back at him.

    When Kavanaugh used the phrase, nobody insisted that the statement necessarily implied violence or anything but political consequence.

    Reaping the whirlwind is 2500 year old figure of speech that normal people use all the time.  If Republicans generally have suddenly turned ignorant of the phrase's ordinary usages, that ignorance is only by choice.


  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,929
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @oromagi
    Here is the exact quote which, we should note, GP carefully fails to cite:

    It is possible that this was not "careful failure to cite" and instead mere projection on GPs part, he believing that an "armed revolt" is the option that he would favor if the positions were reversed and therefore that it is reasonable to assume this to be the option anyone else who might disagree with the Supreme Court should favor.

    It is also possible that he is merely prone to childlike exaggeration. Consider previous quotes of his such as "Mexicans are doing to us the same thing that Europeans did to Native Americans"

    He also has an outrageously strong black-and-white mentality, to the point where he incorrectly interpreted my pointing out that there was no evidence of a Mexican plot to commit genocide against anyone as me being in favor of open immigration policies.

    Actually now that I think back on that incident his insistance on holding to that interpratation even after being corrected makes me think you are probably right, he probably is intentionally twisting the truth rather than simply misunderstanding it in some way.