Lots of heated rhetoric in US politics these days.
One side says something impassioned and the other side takes it - sometimes out of context - and says, "See! The other side is mean and evil! Their inflammatory speech might’ve incited so-and-so to do such-and-such!"
First, as previously posted, people are responsible for their own actions. If some nut does something violent, that's fundamentally on them.
We need to be slow to accuse politicians or commentators of culpability in insurrection or assault or inciting a riot, etc. If a politician says to another politician, "if you do this, there will be consequences!" the assumption is that the rest of that sentence would be something like, "... in November." That should not cause the special snowflakes to melt.
But, then there's Chuck Schumer.
Here's what he said (actually, yelled):
"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."*
As you know (actually, you may not know if you only consume mainstream media), after Schumer said this, someone flew across the country specifically to go, with a Glock 17 and a knife, to justice Kavanaugh's house to kill him (and perhaps his family).
Fortunately, law enforcement was there to deter the would-be assassin.
For context, yes, Schumer got all worked up after the SCOTUS leak on Dobbs ... and, yes, he was pandering to his blood-thirsty audience ... and, yes, he was clearly wrapped up in the cheers he was getting from throwing them red meat.
But, here's the thing:
When he directly, personally threatened two Supreme Court justices, what exactly was he talking about?
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They are specifically not accountable to Schumer and the rest of the legislative branch (nor are they directly accountable to the mob, once confirmed). There is no November. And what they do is not political.** Nor is it supposed to be put under pressure (doing so is generally illegal).
So, what is the "price" of the "whirlwind" (in his garbled metaphor)??
Chuck, what were you talking about? You need to specifically answer that. And then you need to sponsor measures to protect our Supreme Court justices. Now. Before Dobbs is released.
* Full disclosure - someone must have pointed the above out to Chucky, because the next day he said the following in a floor speech: "I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to. My point was that there would be political consequences — political consequences — for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed Justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose," he said. "I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat." Problem is: it WAS a threat - and directed SPECIFICALLY to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (not Trump or Senate Republicans). His non-apology is a lie. I give apologies more weight than the Left does, but the “apology“ has to be an actual apology. And needs to be followed by action - like condemnation of what has been happening around justices homes and legislation to ensure they are well-protected and leaks don't happen again. And, while you are at it, Chuckster, vow to not over-react to what others say in the future.
** the fact that SCOTUS is not accountable to the political process is appropriate, assuming they do what they are (primarily) supposed to do - that is, strictly apply the Constitution to test legislation for Constitutionality. Recent events are a perfect example of why they need to stick to that (see "Leveling the Playing Field" and "Abortion - There I Said It").
Comments