Should a politician be allowed to threaten a Supreme Court justice that he/she will PAY for a decision made on the court?

The quote I posted was spoken by a politician currently in high office.   I removed the names of the judges the politician named specifically.   

Is that quote ever ok to say to our justices? Should Congress censure this politician?

Censure is a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior. In the United States, governmental censure is done when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the President of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member.

  What the heck is “we allowed to SCOTUS justice” supposed to mean?

Sorry fixed.   

Interesting---you misspoke; Randy D called you out; you corrected your statement.

Identical to what Schumer did.

So if Schumer deserved to be censured, I assume you should be censured as well.

I attacked no one. I corrected my statement and apologized.  NOT identical at all. 

Schumer on the other hand did attack.  Did not correct and did not apologize. Did not even claim to have misspoke. Perhaps he will later but as of right now he has not. 

So no, because I did not at any time make a statement that attacked anyone at anytime before or after my correction. 

Sorry, calling the tail a leg doesn't change reality.

The issue is not the attack, it is the fact that you didn't accurately say what you meant.

And I recently saw Schumer's correction on the news some hours ago.

And his correction indicates he did not "attack" as you assert.

I think I'll start a Go Fund Me page---the obligation I feel to comment on some of the things I read on this site is taking up a lot of my time and a lot of my knowledge.  It may well be appropriate that I be acknowledged for my consulting. This post was edited by tom jackson at March 5, 2020 5:43 PM MST

The issue is the attack..... that is the issue.   That is why he maybe censured. 

Yes his aide tried to say he was referring to the Republicans in Congress.  But that is not what he said.  And Schumer has not apologize.   IF it was a mistake then he should apologize to those justices. 

"If I say Joe if you post this, you will have to pay a price and you will be surprised at how it hits you." I cannot claim I meant someone other than Joe.   I can say I forgot to say Joe and Joe's company. But that does not change the fact that I said Joe and I meant Joe specifically. 

No, your interpretation is that what he said is an attack.

You quote Schumer---"I want to tell you (Judge Name), I want to tell you (Judge Name) - 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"

Answer Mug Member---"I want to tell you (Other Answer Mug Member) I want to tell you (Other Answer Mug Member) - 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." (and continue to post them, then your poor judgment will be noted by all who read your posts.)

Seriously???

I've heard it said that if one bends over too far backward to reach a conclusion and one can possibly injure one's back.

Edit:---Repetition is a rhetorical technique to add emphasis 

Notice he did not say "I want to warn you."   "I want to tell you" carries a very different meaning.  





This post was edited by tom jackson at March 6, 2020 4:46 AM MST

The American Bar Association: "Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats -- whether real or allegorical," the ABA said in a statement. "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."

If I as a mod, posted that to a user here...Yes it would be considered a threat.   Schumer as a member of Senate is making a threat.  

Well, the terms of service here are arbitrary standards imposed by this site and their applications are judgment calls---just like your interpretation of Schumer's comments---and have no inherent claim to be an accurate judgments

So, Schumer was not making a threat.

And the American Bar Association statement is no more than an opinion---and a reasonable one that I support---but contingent upon the actual existence of a threat.

Notice how cleverly they made no comment about Schumer, but only about threats (if and when they are actually made) which allowed them to make a statement of principle--which was probably what they thought they should do, before they were asked by some reporter---and let both the educated and uneducated alike jump to their own conclusions.

And if you posted that to me, I assure you that I would never in a million years consider that a threat

Glad to here you agree with the ABA.  Here is there first part of the statement:

"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. . . .
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."

As you can see they did directly mention Schumer and his threat.

I agree with the ABA with regard specifically to it statement about threats---if the statement meets the worst implication of that word when it's used.

Based on your comments and answers on this thread to the question that you yourself posed, I am concerned that you might also be deeply troubled by Schumer's statements---if so, I can't help.

But I would take the American Bar Association's about being "deeply troubled"---Associations don't really have feelings that can be troubled, and the necessity to posture publicly should not be confused with any more than "politically correct"---with a very "large grain of salt."

Take it up to with the ABA it was their statement.  But the people in charge there, did not like it.  As they explained.  


This post was edited by my2cents at March 6, 2020 1:35 PM MST

Would it have been a threat if Trump had said it? 

A prediction of what? Supremes are appointed to a lifetime position?  He did not say Republicans will "pay the price" or "will be hit"....he named the justices by name and said YOU will....if you make this decision.

Yes it would be a threat if Trump said it because Trump has demonstrated that he will eventually try to hurt and/or punish anyone who doesn't display the level of loyalty to him that he expects.

Trump does things---which you argue is the only thing Trump should be judged on.  For example, if you question Trumps behavior on Trump's Ukraine phone call like Lt. Col. Vindman did then you are subsequently reassigned off the United States National Security Council (NSC) on February 7, 2020.

Trump has the principles of the scorpion in is The Scorpion and the Frog animal fable---hurt and/or punish when possible because it pleases Trump to act that way.

Trump is the scorpion in The Scorpion and the Frog animal fable which teaches that vicious people often cannot resist hurting others even when it is not in their interests.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Vindman was/is a leaker of classified information.  He testified to that in Congress.  He is lucky reassigned is all he got. 

Confirmation bias---, Yawn

President Donald Trump defended removing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the White House’s National Security Council by claiming that Vindman’s “superior … publicly stated that Vindman had problems with judgement, adhering to the chain of command and leaking information.” But the latter claim leaves a false impression, and the others omit important context.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/fact-checking-trumps-defense-for-removing-vindman/

No, he testified to telling others about the call. (The call is classified) He did not get to specify who he was talking to because Schiffty interrupted and did not allow it. Vindman's supervisor also testified that he had be told Vindman was a possible leaker.

From you link:
Morrison said in his October deposition that he “had concerns” about Vindman’s “judgment.” He later explained that meant Vindman “did not always exercise the best judgment in terms of the policymaking process and — the policy process.” He also said he “had concerns” that Vindman “did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.”

This alone is enough reason to be reassigned. This post was edited by my2cents at March 7, 2020 6:15 AM MST

No, it would not. I think the Democrats do the same thing to Trump. He says a lot of things that just get blown way out of proportion.  He has pretty much said that certain justices are biased against him and you didn't seem to mind. Schumer predicted that there would be political consequences. And there will be. This is a polarizing issue.

Fair enough.  I see it as a threat regardless of who said it. And I would complain if Trump said it.   I see it as a threat of impeachment if Dems retain the House and they rule against abortion. That is the only way, the upcoming election could effect either of the justices....they have lifetime appointments. 

Yes, it is and will always be an issue. 

Trump said he believed them to be biased and should recuse. The justices said things in public that were biased against him.  Sonya in public court paperwork.  RBG during the 2016 election. She has since apologized and said she should not have made her statement.   Trump did not tell either of them they would "pay a price" or "will not know what hit them" if they make a decision or imply impeachment if they did not recuse.     

Trump has proved that if he makes a threat, there is about a 99% probability that he is already trying to carry it out immediately and a 1% chance it will take a little longer to accomplish.

If I had a daughter, I would trust her being alone with Schumer to learn about politics and government---but with Trump, I suspect that not only would neither politics nor government would be the subject of what she might learn, but that whatever she may be forced to study may not in any way how she dreamed of learning the topic.