Active Now

SpunkySenior
excon
RosieG
Baba
Nevan B
Shuhak
Randy D
Kittigate
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Should a politician be allowed to threaten a Supreme Court justice that he/she will PAY for a decision made on the court?

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

Should they be censured? 

"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"

Posted - March 5

Responses


  • 21296
    There is talk of censure. Sen Hawley says he plans to introduce it today. 
      March 5, 2020 12:19 PM MST
    0

  • 1700
    More Washington theatrics - nothing will come of it.  Remember this is an election year and the NYC directed schills will be out
      March 5, 2020 12:21 PM MST
    1

  • 13119
    Censure, ethics charge, expulsion, caning  
      March 5, 2020 2:38 PM MST
    1

  • 21296
    I agree. Removed from is post as minority leader.
      March 6, 2020 12:52 PM MST
    1

  • 5489

    Was he pointing a gun, or waving a knife when he made the “threat”? 

    Freedom of speech. No different than when Trump slanders and defames others with false and ugly rhetoric on Twitter, or at his ego-nourishment rallies.
    Let them rave on that all shall know them mad.  

      March 5, 2020 8:38 PM MST
    1

  • 21296
    A threat does not require a gun, knife or any weapon.   
    There are limits to freedom of speech. And it can be a crime. 
      March 6, 2020 12:36 PM MST
    0

  • 6826
    Tell me how Schumer comments can be interpreted as a criminal threat---Address both case law and the law of the case as to how he could be convicted, and include how the "reasonable man" concept might be applied during the trial.

    I love second opinions.
      March 6, 2020 1:45 PM MST
    0

  • 5489

    Oh, puh-lease. No one was truly threatened by this dumb rhetoric; the partisan sensationalism is such a sad pretense. On both sides. 
    Since you’ve taken up being offended by obvious hyperbole now, where is your protestation over the obvious lies and intimidation tactics of a certain president with an orange complexion? 

    Funny how some sensibilities rise and fall in accordance with how they BENEFIT YOUR POSITION. 

    This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 6, 2020 8:10 PM MST
      March 6, 2020 6:36 PM MST
    0

  • 21296
    Tell that to Steve Scalice. Who was shot multiple times by a Bernie supporter that. 

    American Bar Association says it was a threat. 
      March 7, 2020 6:04 AM MST
    0

  • 5489

    What a poor analogy. 
    Why don‘t we go talk to Heather Heyer’s parents? Run down by a car driven by a Trump supporter, at a protest by Trump supporters. Just as irrelevant to the biased assertions you aren’t effectively supporting in this thread.

    Mitt Romney got death threats for his impeachment vote. Where was your indignation on that? (I read your sarcasm about “getting him in line”). Bye bye credibility. 

    Seems like cherrypicking what is deemed offensive as convenient to political agenda, and nothing more. 

      March 7, 2020 6:48 AM MST
    0

  • 21296
    American Bar Association says it was a threat.

    I do not think anyone should get death threats for a vote. I think they should be primaried. (Being primaried is a threat as well....as is threating to impeach which is tbe only threat Schumer had direct possibility to be involved in)  This post was edited by my2cents at March 7, 2020 6:55 AM MST
      March 7, 2020 6:52 AM MST
    0

  • 13119
    A threat need not include a physical implement.  I think you know that. 
      March 6, 2020 8:38 PM MST
    1

  • 5489

    To make that statement threatening, it would have. A bunch of babies whining, on both sides. 

    In this climate of political division, stoked daily by a blustering narcissist in the WH, it is laughably hypocritical that this weak rhetoric was seized upon by the narcissist’s enablers as “threatening”, simply because it was from someone other than the narcissist himself. Project much? 

      March 7, 2020 6:25 AM MST
    0

  • 21296
    American Bar Association says it was a threat.  
      March 7, 2020 6:33 AM MST
    0

  • 5489
    If that is enough for you, then so be it. 
      March 7, 2020 6:57 AM MST
    1

  • 4149
    People in high office deserve protection: chauffeurs, bullet and bomb proof vehicles, high walls, dogs, surveillance, lasers trips and alarms, body guards, the lot.

    Only legal means should be used to check judges and the like if they have committed an error.

    I don't believe anyone should be allowed to threaten for any reason.

    But how exactly does one prevent it in a country that values free speech? 
    Up comes the old debate about how free is free,
    what is the balance between rights and responsibilities,
    and what are the reasonable limits needed to protect those who are vulnerable?

    One can set up protections and yet we've all heard thousands of cases in which these fail. Police can intervene and warn, but real help comes after the threat is carried out - unfortunately always too late.

    In my view, threatening is the sign of a bully. It should always be taken seriously.
      March 5, 2020 11:11 PM MST
    1

  • 21296
    Yes there is a line. And we strive to find it in society.  
    I would think a man who has been in politics this long would know better. 
      March 6, 2020 12:39 PM MST
    0

  • 6826
    Trump doesn't strive to find it.
      March 6, 2020 1:48 PM MST
    0

  • 6826
    So is a "threatening" sky an example of Mother Nature's being a bully?
      March 6, 2020 1:47 PM MST
    1