Chuck Schumer added his voice to a gathering outside the US Supreme Court Today. 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.”
What’s the big to-do? Well, SCOTUS is hearing a case out of Louisiana (June Medical Services v. Russo). The People of that fine state have a law. It requires anyone who performs a specific elective medical procedure to have hospital admitting privileges. If upheld doctors in that state could not perform abortions unless they were able to admit their patients to a hospital in the event of complications.
It appears that the Left has gotten wind that the Court might uphold the law. It was Schumer’s turn to make threats. But in keeping with Democrats’ inability to learn from history he forgot about what happened the last time a US Senator threatened this court.
It was just last August. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Sen Sheldon Whitehouse and a few of his Democrat Senate Toughs used an Amicus brief to send a message. Youse Guys better not take this case.
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.
They took it. A decision has not been released but is pending.
As for the Louisiana case, Chief Justice Roberts did not take kindly to Mr. Schumer’s antics.
Sorry buddy, go pound sand.
There is, naturally, speculation about what it is exactly Senator Schumer means by “you will pay the price!” and “You won’t know what hit you.” I doubt Justice Kavanaugh is terribly moved by any of it after the fraud they perpetrated during his confirmation. Gorsuch does not appear to be a wilting flower either. And a I noted during the kerfuffle over New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, Justices who might typically lean another way may not take kindly to threats from a co-equal branch of the Republic.
While Schumer may have just been grandstanding for the troops (and ensuring future millions in fundraising to Senate Democrats from the global corporations who profit from unrestricted baby-murder) this might be seen as stepping over the line.
Roberts, in particular, who has proven himself to be fungible, could have been a deciding vote, now adequately incensed, might feel inclined to observe that Roe v Wade and it’s unaborted judicial offspring say little or nothing about the qualifications of the person interrupting the development of a human being. An issue that could prove troublesome for New Hampshire.
The only pre-requisite to abortion in New Hampshire is the consent of a pregnant woman and another human being willing to perform it. That’s it. You don’t need to be a doctor or even licensed, just unaborted.
But if Louisiana can require doctors with hospital admitting privileges so can any other state. That means fewer abortions, fewer tax dollars run through the Abortion mill laundromat into Democrat campaigns and, here’s the big one, more children, mostly minority, surviving to grow up with a chance to decide their own destiny. Assuming they don’t get trapped in a Democrat-run city where they are again left helpless and unable to legally defend themselves. Do you detect a pattern because I do?
One more point. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch is demonstrably convinced of the circumstances that would make Louisiana’s admitting privileges easier than in Texas where SCOTUS Struck down a similar law. Does the Schumer threat change anything for either of them given that a vote in the Democrats favor might appear as if they were cowed?
Correction: The previous title made it appear as if Sen. Schumer had threatened Justices in the past when the intent was that another (different) Democrat Senator was threatening members of the Court. It has been changed to (hopefully) better reflect that intent.
