Image 01 Image 03

Sen. Chuck Schumer Threatens U.S. Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Sen. Chuck Schumer Threatens U.S. Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and 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!”

In a bizarre speech at what appears to be a pro-abortion event, Senate Minority Leader Schumer accused Republicans of “taking away fundamental rights.”

Schumer then threatened Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh saying, “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!”


(video also here)

Seeing as a job on the SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, I’m not entirely sure what Schumer is threatening, but whatever it is, it’s not good.

From Schumer’s own account (without the threat):


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Justice Millhouse, isn’t threatening a sitting judge (or justice) in order to influence his/her decision in pending matters a crime? DOJ should seriously consider charging Schumer! This was not a speech made on the floor of the Senate, which would (probably) be immune.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Geologist. | March 4, 2020 at 4:00 pm

    Hear! Hear!

    Chucky is a Stalker it would seem no?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Geologist. | March 4, 2020 at 6:51 pm

    Chuck Schumer’s arrogance is astounding, he apparently thinks he can sway people with a whirlwind of anger driven hot air.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Geologist. | March 4, 2020 at 8:13 pm

    In our multi-level system of jurisprudence [not Justice]; no action or statement by a Leftist can be deemed criminal or illegal. To make things “even” no action or statement by anyone to the Right of Trotsky can be deemed innocent.

    Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to Geologist. | March 4, 2020 at 11:21 pm

    It depends what you threaten them with. I take it he was threatening them with impeachment and removal. He knows it’s an empty threat, and so do they, so it wouldn’t be at all likely to affect their vote, but the crowd ate it up, which was all he intended.

    And while that would be highly improper, I don’t think it can be a crime. The senate ought to censure him, and Roberts has already rebuked him, but I don’t think DOJ has anything to charge him with.

      ahad haamoratsim in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 12:28 am

      Surely the ABA will issue a swift and stern rebuke. In the words of Dorothy Parker, “And I am Marie of Romania.”

      ahad haamoratsim in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 12:28 am

      Surely the ABA will issue a swift and stern rebuke. In the words of Dorothy Parker, “And I am Marie of Romania.”

        Milhouse in reply to ahad haamoratsim. | March 5, 2020 at 3:42 pm

        The ABA? Don’t make me laught. Though actually this was bad enough that the ABA might even be shamed into issuing some sort of statement, blaming both sides.

      Mark Levin strongly disagrees. Schumer is the minority leader in the SENATE, the saucer that cools the passions. Making threatening speeches like Che Guevera on the steps of the Supreme Court BEFORE they hear the case and making SPECIFIC threats to individual judges is grounds for more than censure.
      Were any attorney, or someone with the name of Joe Wilson, to do the same, they would at least be disbarred.

      The spineless Senate leadership (McConnell? Graham?) should be already working on proposing that he at least be censured and better, be subjected to investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. Yes, he could be bounced from the Senate for this. It may very well be a crime.

        Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | March 5, 2020 at 10:20 am

        I already said he should be censured, but it’s not a crime. Levin is a disgrace. And expulsion takes 2/3, which won’t be there. Plus he’d only get back in and that would be that.

        The senate’s longstanding opinion has been that its power of expulsion is limited to offenses committed during that senator’s term; once a senator has started a new term he can’t be expelled for what happened earlier. The Supreme Court has not endorsed this view but has taken official notice of its existence and the unlikelihood of its being changed.

          Mark Levin is a disgrace? WTF?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 3:44 pm

          Levin makes legal claims he knows are false, because he’s a very good lawyer. He’d never make them in court. But he makes them in public because they advance his political agenda.

          Such as suggesting, as you quote him, that since the senate is supposed to be a “cooling saucer” this somehow makes Schumer’s rhetoric — which is clearly the opposite of cooling — a crime.

2smartforlibs | March 4, 2020 at 2:17 pm

CHUCK YOU read Title 18 USC 115. OBSTRUCTION pal.

    artichoke in reply to 2smartforlibs. | March 4, 2020 at 2:35 pm

    He thinks “Obstruction of Congress” is terrible and Obstruction of Justice is OK.

    He’s got it backward!

    dystopia in reply to 2smartforlibs. | March 4, 2020 at 2:37 pm

    18 U.S.C. § 1503 would be more applicable. If Schumer were indicted, what to you think Her Judicial Highness, Amy Berman Jackson, (who will randomly be assigned the case) would do?

      practicalconservative in reply to dystopia. | March 4, 2020 at 4:22 pm

      Assuming it made it to trial, Berman-Jackson already has a go to juror from the Roger Stone trial. Of course she would likely dismiss with prejudice.

    Milhouse in reply to 2smartforlibs. | March 4, 2020 at 11:31 pm

    CHUCK YOU read Title 18 USC 115. OBSTRUCTION pal.

    He did not threaten to assault, kidnap, or murder anyone. So no, it’s not applicable.

    18 U.S.C. § 1503 would be more applicable.

    Nope, not that either. Besides the fact that I don’t think the text applies to judges, Schumer’s endeavor to influence the justices was not corrupt, nor was it done by threats of force, so you must be referring to the third option, “or by any threatening letter or communication”. But to avoid clashing with the first amendment I’m pretty sure the courts would say it has to be a true threat, and Schumer’s words were not.

      Sonnys Mom in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 1:01 am

      I was frightened when I heard the replay of that part of the speech. It sounded like a threat of force to me.

      dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 4:29 pm

      Not sure you are correct. Can you site some caselaw. The omnibus statute is construed broadly. Give me some SCOTUS bright line precedent.

        Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | March 6, 2020 at 12:32 am

        Caselaw on what? The first amendment? There’s oodles of it, all saying that this sort of thing is protected. Therefore the statute can’t be read so as to clash with it.

        Also, corruption has a definition, and this doesn’t seem to fit. There’s no bribery or anything like it.

Slimeball Chuck says, “Not on our [Ds] watch.”

Chuck and Old Joe must be eating the same breakfast cereal. You’re not on the watch. This R president is the one who nominates judges and this R-controlled Senate is the one which affirms the nominations.

What’s he talking about?

    Edward in reply to fscarn. | March 4, 2020 at 2:45 pm

    It’s not what he’s talking about, but rather where he’s talking from.

    zennyfan in reply to fscarn. | March 4, 2020 at 6:03 pm

    Impeachment if Democrats retake her Senate? Democrats impeached Trump over policy differences with a lieutenant colonel and the Interagency (and because he beat Hillary), so why not?

    Milhouse in reply to fscarn. | March 4, 2020 at 11:33 pm

    I think by “not on our watch” he simply means “not while we can do something about it”. Which of course he can’t, and he knows it, but it sounded good.

I suspect Kavanaugh has had enough of Schumer from all the personal attacks in the confirmation proceedings. Schumer’s threats will only serve to make Kavanaugh justifiably mad. Any competent attorney will tell a client that the worst thing you can do is to piss off the judge. I suspect that Gorsuch and Thomas will be negatively influenced as well.

Right now, Schumer is doing a great job of demonstrating to anyone with some objectivity that he is a partisan blowhard.

    Edward in reply to dystopia. | March 4, 2020 at 2:47 pm

    That’s assuming they were born yesterday or fell off the turnip truck last night. Everyone else has already known it for years.

Lobby the states and don’t count of the Supreme Court to do it for you, would be the ideal. Elsewhere in the world it’s not a contentious issues, just a compromise that gets enough votes from both sides.

    Voyager in reply to rhhardin. | March 4, 2020 at 2:49 pm

    If you look at where the rest of the world settled on, the D’s are sitting very far out of step with the consensus, and terrified they will lose control.

    n.n in reply to rhhardin. | March 4, 2020 at 4:43 pm

    Even the Chinese communists have curbed use of their wicked solution, their reproductive rites (e.g. one-child, selective-child). Although, they are still operating Planned Parenthood clinics to recycle… cannibalize profitable parts. That said, you’re right, moral progression will ultimately be mitigated through normalization, not proscription. Still, we can’t stop homicides, rape… rape-rapes, pedophilia, but we try anyway.

As with all leftists, they have no real commitment to the rule of law or the Constitution. Schumer is a disgrace, a turd.

Maybe ChuckU likes underage girls a little too much? Who knows what skeletons he has in his closet?

great unknown | March 4, 2020 at 2:40 pm

Waiting for Roberts to make a statement defending the honor and integrity of the Court and the Justices. /s

The Congress are such wimps when it comes to abortion.
Except for funding or defunding abortions, Congress has taken no stand to make it legal or illegal.

    Milhouse in reply to Neo. | March 4, 2020 at 11:37 pm

    It’s not their business to make it legal or illegal (unless you adopt the theory that section 5 of the 14th amendment makes it their business).

Have a Snickers, Chuck. And a Gas-X for the whirlwind.

Given the fact that people who offend the Democrat Mafia and its subsidiary the CCF have a definite tendency to end up pushing up daisies, this should be taken as an actual threat – but it won’t be.

Sure they will, Chuck. What an absolutely valueless meat-sack you are.

    Firewatch in reply to UJ. | March 5, 2020 at 10:12 am

    He is probably still sore from the wedgies he got in junior high. Still a punk ass bitch.

the thing that bothers me most is not that Schumer threatened the supreme court justices, is the fact no one is reporting what this case is about, and the fact that most women are being silent about it. all it is, is that the doctors doing the procedural meet the same conditions of a surgery, it shouldn’t affect the ability of women to get the procedure but to make sure if anything go wrong they get the care necessary to preserve their lives. I guess the lives of the women that get the procedure mean nothing to the Democrats.

    Milhouse in reply to ronk. | March 4, 2020 at 11:42 pm

    But it will affect the ability of women in LA to get the procedure. The only clinic in the state that does it has only one doctor with admitting privileges, and he says if he’s left as the only doctor allowed to work there he’ll quit. So unless they can find someone else with privileges willing to work there the clinic will have to close. Which of course is just fine with the state legislature, and with me.

I thought that the Judiciary Branch and Legislative Branch of our government were separate, but equal. Schumer should mind his own beeswax.

Now they HAVE to ruling in support of the pro-life laws Schumer listed just to slap him down. Schumer cannot possibly be threatening Senate action since it will continue to be under Republican control with a Republican President and soon, a Republican House as well.


    CorkyAgain in reply to Pasadena Phil. | March 4, 2020 at 4:26 pm

    … and even if the threat is impeachment in the event that the Dems retake the Senate, good luck convincing a 2/3 majority that a judicial decision against Democrat policy is
    a “high crime or misdemeanor”.

    (I’m assuming that the likelihood of a Democrat supermajority approaches zero.)

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | March 4, 2020 at 11:44 pm

    No, I’m pretty sure he was threatening impeachment, if and when the Dems retake the senate with such a landslide they get 2/3. Which he knows very well is not going to happen.

      I’m thinking more along the lines of permanent violent protests on the Supreme Court steps and harassment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh everywhere they go, even at home. This has become the new MO since the Stalinists have taken over the party.

Clue numero uno as to what happened to Roberts. Schumer wouldn’t do this so publicly if he hadn’t had success with this tactic before.

That was a dog whistle for the Bernie Bros. and Antifa to take down Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, BY ANY MEANS they find NECESSARY. Justice Cavanaugh and justice Gorsuch, please get some excellent Security.

And get a concealed carry for the best level of protection.

schumer wants abortion on demand w/ no restrictions so his niece can keep on keeping on w/o adding to the family…

Schumer is unhinged. In other words, a typical 21st-century Democrat.

    n.n in reply to McGehee. | March 4, 2020 at 4:48 pm

    They’re licking their wounds after prosecuting more than 12 trimesters of nonviable witch hunts and warlock trials. Reproductive rites is all that they have left to bitterly, ferociously, cling to in order to prove their ideological purity. Well, that, and other dogma of the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, “religion” (e.g. ethics), and derivative doctrines.

The first, the second, the third, the fourth choice, the wicked solution… never again. The Pro-Choice, selective, opportunsitic religion, not limited to reproductive rites, is unmistakeably progressive liberal (i.e. motonically divergent). For a Jew, it is more than a little unseemly to adopt this secular religion. #HateLovesAbortion

Remember the golden rule of politics: It’s about money.

Chucky didn’t say what he said because he thinks it will affect SCOTUS decisions in any way. He said what he said so it could be splashed across TV commercials and fund raising letters during campaign season (also known as this year).

He wants to raise money from lefty outrage. That’s all this is about.

inspectorudy | March 4, 2020 at 4:42 pm

Seeing this Schumer meltdown is just one more example of the mask coming off of a “Reasonable” Demorat. In the Trump environment, they cannot remain hidden behind their masks and their true identity is exposed. Biden, and the entire line up of Dem candidates failed every test during their campaign to show that they were Americans first. Biden is being called a moderate now by the trash heap called the Demorat party. Maybe with a little push from DJT their masks will fall off too.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | March 4, 2020 at 5:07 pm

The Perfect Home for Democrats.

NY Bar Rule 8.4 -Misconduct – Rule(e)(1-2): “A lawyer shall not
(e) state or imply an ability:
(1) to influence improperly or upon irrelevant groundsany tribunal, legislative body or public official; or
(2) to achieve results using means that violate these Rules or other law;”

When someone communicates what is or may be a threat a prudent response is to take that statement seriously and then evaluate further if the situation permits.

SEN Schumer states that ‘ will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions…’.

SEN Schumer is the Senate minority leader and has been in D.C. long enough for a rational person to conclude that SEN Schumer is aware that every Justice enjoys what is in effect life appointment. The only constitutional recourse would be the possibility of an impeachment in the HoR and an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Since an impeachment vote in the HoR, not to mention an impeachment trial in the Senate would each be highly publicised they would be events that a Justice would be aware of and not an unknowable or covert process. Therefore the Justice would be able to ‘..see what hit them..’

SEN Schumer has ruled out impeachment as his meaning by his own choice of language. We are now left with very little option but to ascribe violence to SEN Schumer’s statement. After all if he has eliminated constitutional action by his choice of language how else can we view a statement declaring that ‘…you will pay the price..’ and you won’t know what hit you..’ other than at best an empty rhetorical threat or at worst an actual threat of violence. Either way it isn’t a good look for SEN Schumer.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | March 4, 2020 at 11:48 pm

    There’s no basis for your assertion. He surely did mean impeachment, and he knows it’s an empty threat. As for them not knowing what hit them, it’s hyperbole.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2020 at 11:34 am


      Clearly we disagree on this one. After analyzing SEN Schumer statement I offered two possible meanings based upon a clear and contextual reading of his statement.

      1. Best case – empty rhetorical threat

      2. Worst case – threat of violence

      As you choose to rephrase 1. Into hyperbole/empty threat it seems you agree with my analysis. Therefore my assertions can’t logically be dismissed since you agree with one of the asserted options derived from that analysis.

Statement from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.:
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.

From Scotus blog – “Ginsburg gets a laugh when she asks Rikelman a friendly question about Craig v. Boren, a 1976 case involving disparate legal drinking ages for young men and women, in which she filed an amicus brief when she was with the ACLU. The decision helps bolster the abortion providers’ third-party standing claim.

“You made a point about Craig versus Boren, that the ostensible purpose of the law was to save the vulnerable young men from the evils of 3.2 beer?” Ginsburg says.

“That’s correct, your honor, and the court allowed the saloon keeper to bring the third-party standing claim,” Rikelman says”

Anyone find it odd that Ginsburg can finding standing when she likes the petitioners position, but not when she dislikes the petitioners position –

Dantzig93101 | March 4, 2020 at 6:18 pm

Mr. Schumer has exhausted the benefit of the doubt. I defer to Prof. Jacobson on the legal details, but Mr. Schumer must be dealt with appropriately. A legitimate government cannot and must not allow such threats against its highest court.

Naturally, we can expect a motion from McConnell and/or Graham to censure Schumer any minute now. I’m holding my breath… still holding…. still holding…

healthguyfsu | March 4, 2020 at 8:00 pm

Trump is unhinged for criticizing a judge but this will get crickets from the same pearl clutchers.

The other possibility is a threat to pack the court, but he would certainly see that coming.

michaelalan | March 5, 2020 at 9:02 am

One thing for sure as long as Lying Lindsey loves a camera Graham is in leadership NOTHING will happen but talk. Blow hard deep stater. I bet he even talks to his wife about sex and never performs..

practicalconservative | March 5, 2020 at 10:09 am

Nope Milhouse. The United States Supreme Court construes this omnibus statute rather broadly. From DOJ

Endeavoring to influence, through a third party, a judge. United States v. Glickman, 604 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980); United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam), or a juror, United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 825 (1980).

    Yes, those cases do show that they consider judges to be “officers” for the purpose of this statute. But there’s no possible comparison between those cases and Schumer’s. The attempted corruption in those cases is clear. In one case there was an outright attempt to bribe a judge, in the other the proposal was to take the judge out to lunch and persuade him to change his decision. Schumer’s threat, deplorable as it is, shows no sign of corruption.

    And charging him for it would present a very difficult first amendment problem. Even if it were a threat of physical violence it would almost certainly be protected speech. After all, how could it be worse than someone addressing an anti-draft demonstration, and proclaiming that if he is drafted and given a rifle he wants to use it to shoot the president? And yet that is protected speech. A fortiori so is Schumer’s threat, which was not of violence. And that means that no matter what the statute says it can’t be a crime.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | March 5, 2020 at 1:47 pm

President Trump blasts Schumer on Hannity