On Friday morning, a leftist writer for The Daily Beast reacted to the news that President Trump had nominated a young, 37-year-old former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by snapping, “Is there any doubt that if a Supreme Court vacancy opened up right now McConnell wouldn’t rush to fill it?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Is there any doubt that if a Supreme Court vacancy opened up right now McConnell wouldn’t rush to fill it? <a href="https://t.co/wn1p8poKU5">https://t.co/wn1p8poKU5</a>
&mdash; Sam Stein (@samstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1246088114210312194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Apparently, in Stein’s judgment, because of the coronavirus crisis that has gripped the nation Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should eschew filling a Supreme Court vacancy if one should occur.
The Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim had an answer for Stein that every conservative, knowing McConnell’s history of pushing forward on judicial appointments, knew was coming, tweeting, &#8220;No. He told me in the interview that he would.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
No. He told me in the interview that he would.
&mdash; Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) <a href="https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1246088906870792194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Kim wrote in an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-taps-former-kavanaugh-clerk-to-fill-vacancy-on-powerful-dc-appeals-court/2020/04/03/3ddb5e50-7446-11ea-ae50-7148009252e3_story.html">article for the Post</a> that was published on Friday:
<blockquote>In the interview with The Post this week, McConnell said the Senate Republican majority’s commitment to confirming judges is unchanged despite a congressional calendar made uncertain by the coronavirus pandemic, preventing senators from holding confirmation hearings and casting votes &#8230;
&#8220;This Congress goes on until Dec. 31, and we intend to confirm all of the judges that are sent up to us this year,” McConnell said. He also reiterated his promise that he would fill a Supreme Court vacancy this year, should there be one, a reversal from his argument in 2016 that a seat should remain open until the voters decide in the presidential election.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/mcconnell-judges-republicans.html">The New York Times</a> reported on March 16 that McConnell has led the effort to convince conservative judges who are eligible to retire to go ahead and retire while the GOP holds the Senate and the White House. The Times wrote:
<blockquote>Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years, has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions.</blockquote>
McConnell <a href="https://www.hughhewitt.com/senate-majority-leader-mitch-mcconnell-5/">spoke with radio host Hugh Hewitt</a> on Tuesday. Hewitt asked,&#8221;I’ve never done an interview with you without bringing up judges. So you’ve got a 5th Circuit nominee yesterday. When the Senate comes back, will you be acting on judges? And part two, have you heard anything about any retirements from the Supreme Court?&#8221;
McConnell answered, &#8220;I’ve heard nothing about any retirements at the Supreme Court, but of course, we will go back to judges. You know, Hugh, you and I have talked about this before. My motto for the rest of the year is leave no vacancy behind.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-mcconnell-judicial-nominations-despite-coronavirus">Buzzfeed News</a> noted, &#8220;One potential hiccup in Republicans’ effort to keep confirming judges as the coronavirus outbreak continues is that hearings for nominees usually involve in-person sworn testimony and that the committee itself has to meet to vote. Social distancing and travel restrictions could complicate that process.&#8221;
&nbsp;

U.S. Senate Meets After Democrats Again Refused To Advance McConnell&#8217;s $2 Trillion Stimulus Plan

Leftists Upset That McConnell Might Fill SCOTUS Vacancy During Virus Crisis. McConnell: Yup.

Mitch McConnell

Supreme Court

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee arguing that the public-sector union that collected fees from him had no right to do so as he had refused to join the union because he opposed many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining.
The Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf">ruled</a>, “States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
Now Janus is asking the Supreme Court to order recompense from the union for the fees they took from him. As <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/plaintiff-whose-case-ended-mandatory-union-fees-asks-supreme-court-to-force-union-to-pay-back-money-taken-from-paychecks">Fox News</a> reports, Janus issued a press release through the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation that stated, &#8220;The Supreme Court agreed that the union taking money from nonmembers was wrong but the union still has the money it illegally garnished from my paycheck.” A brief filed by his legal team states, &#8220;Under Janus, a union deprives public employees of their First Amendment Rights by taking their money without affirmative consent. A union&#8217;s intent when doing so is immaterial.&#8221;
Patrick Hughes, president of the Liberty Justice Center, which also represents Janus, stated, “Mark Janus is just one of many public employees whose money was illegally taken by government unions. Workers across the country are rightfully asking for their money back. It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue and finally hold unions accountable for their years of unconstitutional behavior.&#8221;
The Supreme Court would have to overturn the decisions by the district court and the Seventh Circuit which concurred that the union, AFSCME, did not need to pay Janus the money taken from him. The Seventh Circuit wrote, “Until [the Janus decision] said otherwise, AFSCME had a legal right to receive and spend fair-share fees collected from nonmembers as long as it complied with state law &#8230; It did not demonstrate bad faith when it followed these rules.”
Fox News notes, “A ruling against the unions again could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from workers who also want a refund of their agency fees that were collected before 2018. While Janus is only seeking about $3,000 in his claim, the groups backing Janus&#8217; suit said in a press release that they are working on over 30 cases similar to this one, totaling a whopping $120 million in requested refunds.”
Seventh Circuit Judge Daniel Manion had <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Janus_v_State_County__Mun_Emps_Council_31_No_191553_2019_BL_42431?1583857468">warned</a> the unions to consider themselves lucky, writing, “Even though the Supreme Court reached the wrong result in Abood 41 years before Janus II, the unions justify their acceptance of many millions of dollars because they accepted the money in ‘good faith.’ Probably a better way of looking at it would be to say rather than good faith, they had very &#8220;good luck&#8221; in receiving this windfall for so many years. Since the court is not holding that the unions must repay a portion of the windfall, they can remind themselves of their good luck for the years ahead.”

Supreme Court Hears Major Challenge To Union Membership In Janus v. AFSCME

Man Whose Case Ended Mandatory Union Fees Asks Supreme Court: Get My Money Back From Union

unions

Arrogant Sen. Chuck Schumer crossed the line in threatening United States Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. His words were shocking, even for him.
I don&#8217;t usually get too exercised about political rhetoric, realizing that impassioned politicians regularly engage in hyperbole. But Schumer&#8217;s remarks were inexcusable by any standard.
At an abortion rights rally hosted by the deceptively named Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer said: &#8220;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&#8217;t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.&#8221;
It&#8217;s one thing for members of the political branches to criticize judges after they&#8217;ve made decisions they disagree with, but to threaten them with consequences in advance of a decision is shocking. If I had hair-trigger sensitivity for impeachable offenses like congressional Democrats, I&#8217;d call this a &#8220;high crime or misdemeanor.&#8221; But I don&#8217;t, so I won&#8217;t.
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuked Schumer for his intemperate remarks, Schumer sort of apologized — but not really. Not even close, actually. He first counterpunched McConnell, claiming that McConnell made a &#8220;glaring omission&#8221; in not specifying that Schumer was referring to a case before the court that could impact a woman&#8217;s ability to get an abortion.
Come on, Senator. Who would need additional context, given that Schumer was speaking to a pro-abortion mob? Besides, how would adding that fact have mitigated Schumer&#8217;s comments? He has no more right to threaten judges over a prospective decision involving the Democrats&#8217; holy sacrament of abortion than he does, say, over a pending immigration case.
Schumer said he shouldn&#8217;t have used those words and they didn&#8217;t come out as he intended. He wasn&#8217;t issuing a threat; he was referring to the political consequences the case could have.
Though Schumer&#8217;s spokesman Justin Goodman said Schumer was addressing Republican congressmen when he said a price would be paid, his language was in the second person, a direct warning to two of the justices by name: &#8220;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&#8217;t know what hit you if you go forward &#8230;&#8221;
I count six &#8220;yous&#8221; in addition to the naming of the justices. Is Schumer saying he meant for the justices to convey his comments to the congressmen? That&#8217;s laughable.
&#8220;(Y)ou will pay the price&#8221; and &#8220;you won&#8217;t know what hit you&#8221; are unambiguous threats, even if metaphorical. But how could these justices pay metaphorically? Was Schumer threatening to impeach them? What for — following the Constitution? At the very least, Schumer was fanning the flames of the abortion throng, and that itself is dangerous, given the left&#8217;s penchant for violence these days. There&#8217;s no excuse for his comments or doubling down while pretending to apologize.
Schumer&#8217;s non-apology makes his original statement worse, not better. It confirms that he thinks it is appropriate to put political pressure on judges in advance of their rulings. It shows that he believes the court should make a political decision in this case, rather than interpret statutes and the Constitution.
Schumer&#8217;s lack of repentance appears in his defiant response to the normally mild-mannered Chief Justice Roberts calling his remarks &#8220;dangerous.&#8221; Schumer shot back, accusing Roberts of bias for not calling out President Donald Trump for criticizing Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week. But Trump didn&#8217;t threaten the justices. He simply pointed out they were biased against him and that Sotomayor had accused Republican-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump.
One fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives, like the framers, believe the judiciary is a nonpolitical branch of government and that courts should interpret laws, not make them. For progressives, everything is political, including the judiciary, and the court should decide cases based on political considerations.
This is all the more reason we should appreciate Trump&#8217;s stellar track record in appointing two originalist Supreme Court justices and a host of other originalist appellate and district court judges. Schumer&#8217;s misbehavior is a glaring reminder of the importance of defeating the lawless party in November.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is &#8220;Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win.&#8221; Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Sen. Chuck Schumer

LIMBAUGH: A Threat Is A Threat, Sen. Schumer

Brett Kavanaugh

Charles Schumer

John Roberts

Neil Gorsuch

In response to Sen. Chuck Schumer&#8217;s (D-NY) threatening message directed at two pro-life Supreme Court Justices, over a dozen Republican senators introduced a resolution Thursday to censure their Democratic colleague. But one Republican senator has gone on the record to explain why he would vote against the measure — and it has to do with making life a little easier for President Trump.
The comments that inspired the Republicans&#8217; resolution came during an event hosted by abortion activists outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. &#8220;Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history,&#8221; Schumer told the radical abortion activists. &#8220;Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights.&#8221;
After leveling the usual dire accusations against Republicans, Schumer directed his statement to Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. &#8220;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,&#8221; Schumer declared.
In response, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) sponsored a motion Thursday to censure Schumer for undermining the independence of the judiciary. Fourteen other Republican senators signed on: Ted Cruz (TX), Mike Braun (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Ben Sasse (NE), Mike Lee (UT), Rick Scott (FL), Steve Daines (MT), Thom Tillis (NC), Kevin Cramer (ND), Kelly Loeffler (GA), David Perdue (GA), Jim Inhofe (OK), Tim Scott (SC), and Martha McSally (AZ).
The motion, Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) said, first has to move through committee, as reported by the <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/5/more-dozen-republican-senators-move-censure-schume/">Washington Times</a>.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), meanwhile, says he&#8217;s against the resolution, but not why one might think. The problem with censuring Schumer over his comments, the senator suggested, is that it opens up a can of worms, particularly for Trump.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t want to start censuring everybody,&#8221; said Graham, as reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics/graham-schumer-scotus-controversy-censure/index.html">CNN</a>. &#8220;If we start censuring him, they&#8217;re going to want to censure Trump, and this stuff never ends,&#8221; he added.
Another reason he&#8217;s not enthused about the resolution, Graham said, is that Schumer has since walked back, at least partially, his incendiary statement.
&#8220;Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn&#8217;t come out the way I intended to,&#8221; Schumer <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics/senate-republicans-chuck-schumer/index.html">said</a> Thursday after significant backlash. &#8220;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&#8217;s right to choose.&#8221;
Schumer did not explain how there could be &#8220;political consequences&#8221; for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Among those who called out the Democratic senator for his comments was Chief Justice John Roberts, who issued a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-chief-justice-roberts-blasts-schumer-for-threatening-gorsuch-kavanaugh">rare rebuke</a> Wednesday condemning Schumer&#8217;s threat as &#8220;inappropriate&#8221; and &#8220;dangerous.&#8221;
“This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside,” said the Chief Justice in a statement Wednesday. “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.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumers-recent-tweet-about-supreme-court-comes-back-to-bite-him-after-threat-against-justices">Schumer’s Recent Tweet About Trump Comes Back To Bite Him After Threat Against Justices</a>

Donald Trump Lindsey Graham

Graham Opposes Censuring Schumer For Threat, Says It’s Better For Trump

Abortion

Donald Trump

Lindsey Graham

Former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis told Fox News on Thursday that Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer&#8217;s (D-NY) threatening remarks toward two Supreme Court Justices yesterday could &#8220;very well be criminal.&#8221;
&#8220;I’ve got to tell you, and Schumer is kind of backtracking, we’ve heard today, I think it’s a day late and a dollar short,&#8221; Lewis said. &#8220;Listen, as a young prosecutor down here in Miami, I actually prosecuted, put somebody in jail for about three years, if I recall correctly, under a similar circumstance where they had threatened a federal judge that had a case pending before her.&#8221;
&#8220;Listen, I don’t think this is bad judgment,&#8221; Lewis continued. &#8220;This may very well be criminal.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
More fall out from Chuck Schumer&#39;s threat of violence against two SCOTUS justices &#8212; by name. Even the American Bar Association is speaking out against Schumer. Will we ever get an actual apology or just more excuses? <a href="https://t.co/iorcAVyAZE">pic.twitter.com/iorcAVyAZE</a>
&mdash; (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1235739042261557248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lewis&#8217; comments come in response to Schumer attending a far-left pro-abortion rally yesterday where he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-chuck-schumer-appears-to-threaten-supreme-court-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh">yelled</a>: “Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history.”
Shortly after he made his remarks, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-chief-justice-roberts-blasts-schumer-for-threatening-gorsuch-kavanaugh">responded</a> by condemning the comments:
<blockquote>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.&#8217;
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.</blockquote>
President Donald Trump strongly condemned Schumer, tweeting, “This is a direct &amp; dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is a direct &amp; dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW! <a href="https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU">https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235359627082117120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump later added, “There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235370217712300038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A spokesperson for Schumer responded to Roberts’ criticism by attacking Roberts’ character, saying, “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
Schumer’s spokesperson also claimed without evidence, “It was a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”

Senate Votes On Final Verdict In Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump

Former U.S. Attorney On Schumer ‘Threatening’ Justices: ‘May Very Well Be Criminal’

Senator Chuck Schumer&#8217;s threats against Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the steps of the Supreme Court yesterday were clearly meant to be physical intimidation. His spokesman now claims Schumer&#8217;s warning that the named justices would &#8220;pay a price,&#8221; &#8220;reap the whirlwind,&#8221; and &#8220;not know what hit them,&#8221; was referring to political backlash. But members of the nation&#8217;s highest court are, by design, insulated from political backlash. They aren&#8217;t elected. They can&#8217;t be kicked out of office for issuing an unpopular opinion. So if he wasn&#8217;t referring to a political price – and he couldn&#8217;t have been – then we must ask ourselves: what other sort of price can a public figure be made to pay by an enraged mob? It&#8217;s not hard to connect the dots. Schumer was attempting to intimidate sitting Supreme Court justices, to make them feel physically unsafe, so that they would decide a case how he prefers. That is not only disgraceful but illegal, and he should be arrested and charged.
The rest of the abortion enthusiasts rallying in D.C. have not behaved much better. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1235377676371845123?s=20">launched</a> into one of her patented spittle-flecked rants, shouting that pro-lifers &#8220;shouldn&#8217;t want to have sex&#8221; with her. On that point, I expect broad bipartisan support. A woman who calls herself &#8220;the Beyonce of abortion storytelling&#8221; (which presumably means she lip-syncs her speeches) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1235313000162217987?s=20">bragged</a> about having killed her child, and encouraged the crowd to applaud all women who&#8217;ve had abortions. She was rather explicitly celebrating abortion, even as pro-aborts claim that nobody celebrates abortion. This is what we&#8217;ve come to expect from that side. They do and say things while insisting that nobody does or says the very things they are currently doing and saying.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jOWdZR_gfWk?start=221" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The actress Busy Phillips <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1235642093713924098">vowed</a> to never stop talking about her abortion, of which she is very proud because it helped further her D-list career. Is there anything sadder than someone who trades in their soul and their child for bit parts on &#8220;Drunk History&#8221; and &#8220;Cougar Town&#8221;? Bizarrely, she also promised to continue shouting from the rooftops about her &#8220;periods&#8221; and her &#8220;yeast infections.&#8221; It is not clear what yeast infections have to do with anything or why any sane person would bring them up, unsolicited, in front of an audience. But this is likewise to be expected. The mark of a modern feminist is that she loves to speak in graphic terms about her body and its functions, and she also wants you to know that all of the things she&#8217;s telling you, which you didn&#8217;t ask or want to hear about, are none of your business.
But we can&#8217;t allow the reason for these hysterics to get lost in the mayhem. The pro-abortion rage mob and its ringleaders weren&#8217;t mobilized by a case that threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, the case at issue does not have any direct bearing on abortion rights at all. June Medical Services v. Russo stems from a lawsuit brought by abortionists against the state of Louisiana over a law that would require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The point is to protect women who <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430793/">suffer serious complications</a> during an abortion procedure. The law would ensure that the abortion-injured patient can be admitted directly to a hospital and receive the potentially life-saving treatment she needs. In Louisiana, all ambulatory surgical centers are required to have admitting privileges. This is a very normal regulation that many types of medical clinics all over the country must comply with. If abortion is health care, and abortion clinics are health care facilities, there should be no objection to state laws that treat them accordingly.
Of course, in keeping with the theme, abortion proponents want to have their <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2019/06/04/miley-cyrus-thinks-licking-a-cake-will-make-you-support-abortion/">abortion cake</a>, and eat it too. They want to present child murder as a legitimate medical procedure while reserving the right to go into spasms of fury if anyone proposes a law that treats abortion as a legitimate medical procedure. That&#8217;s because abortion, for them, isn&#8217;t so much medicinal as it is sacramental. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was telling the truth when she <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1232363356213981184?s=20">linked</a> abortion with &#8220;religious freedom.&#8221; No law, policy, regulation, or limitation may get within a thousand miles of the sacred ritual. They will defend unlimited abortions with the same satanic enthusiasm that the Aztecs defended their temples of human sacrifice from the Spanish invaders. All decency and dignity goes out the window. The idol must be protected at all costs. That is what we are witnessing in D.C. this week.

Abortion protest

WALSH: With Their Freak Out In D.C. This Week, Abortion Proponents Have Admitted That Abortion Isn’t Health Care 

Health Care

On Thursday, following the uproar that exploded on Wednesday after Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) issued an apparent threat targeting Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at an abortion activist rally, prompting an avalanche of criticism launched toward Schumer for his remarks, actor James Woods warned that attitudes like Schumer’s were the precursor to something far more dangerous, and precisely the reason that the Second Amendment exists.
Woods took note of the unprecedented step Chief Justice John Roberts took by issuing a statement condemning Schumer’s remarks. Woods tweeted, “When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must take the extraordinary step of admonishing a United States Senator from targeting the lives of named Justices, we are in civil war territory. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment for violent haters like Chuck Schumer.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must take the extraordinary step of admonishing a United States Senator from targeting the lives of named Justices, we are in civil war territory. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment for violent haters like Chuck Schumer.
&mdash; James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1235643106017439744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ted-cruz-weighs-in-on-left-wing-responses-to-schumers-threat-against-justices">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Schumer had ranted, “Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. 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.”
Roberts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-schumer-spox-attacks-chief-justice-roberts-character-after-roberts-condemns-schumers-threats">fired back</a>:
<blockquote>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 &#8220;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.&#8221;
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.</blockquote>
That prompted a spokesman for Schumer to rip Roberts, accusing him of being influenced by the political Right, saying, “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.” The spokesperson continued by claiming, “It was a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”
Woods has been clear about the necessity of the Second Amendment before; in February 2018 he answered a tweet from a leftist who stated on Twitter that they supported a “violent overthrow of Trump.” Woods responded, “And this is why we have a Second Amendment, and why the Founding Fathers stated specifically that the rights therein shall not be ‘infringed.’”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
And this is why we have a Second Amendment, and why the Founding Fathers stated specifically that the rights therein shall not be “infringed.” <a href="https://t.co/hqMKFBUnZc">pic.twitter.com/hqMKFBUnZc</a>
&mdash; James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/965884594712035334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Woods is clearly conservative, but his dedication to the American system supersedes partisan politics. Despite the fact that he strongly opposed former President Barack Obama, in September 2016 he noticed a tweet stating &#8220;We must kill and eat Obama.&#8221; Woods alerted the Secret Service, writing, “.@SecretService You might be interested in this person…&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/james-woods-rushes-to-obamas-defense-on-twitter/">The Wrap</a> reported, Woods later tweeted, “I may disagree with #Obama on virtually everything. To threaten his life allegedly in jest is appalling and a federal felony @SecretService.&#8221;

&#8220;Once Upon A Time In America&#8221; Photo Call &#8211; 52nd New York Film Festival

James Woods Blasts Schumer: ‘The Founding Fathers Wrote The Second Amendment For Violent Haters Like Chuck Schumer’

James Woods

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has become embroiled in controversy after he directed a threatening statement to Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during an abortion rally outside the nation&#8217;s highest court on Wednesday — and a recent complaint against President Trump Schumer posted on Twitter is making matters worse for the Democratic senator.
&#8220;Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history,&#8221; Schumer declared at the Center for Reproductive Rights-hosted event on Wednesday. &#8220;Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights.&#8221;
The senator then directed his next comment specifically to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, both Trump-nominated justices with pro-life records. &#8220;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,&#8221; Schumer warned.
The comment has earned strong rebuke from both the right and the left. But Schumer&#8217;s threat is even more egregious in light of his recent complaint about Trump.
In mid-February, Schumer condemned Trump for criticizing the federal judge presiding over the Roger Stone case, which Schumer described as an assault on &#8220;the independence of the federal judiciary.&#8221; Chief Justice John Roberts, Schumer demanded, must publicly rebuke the president for his criticism.
&#8220;With President Trump publicly attacking a judge: Now would be the time for Chief Justice Roberts to speak up,&#8221; Schumer tweeted along with video of himself listing his complaints against Trump on the Senate floor (h/t <a href="https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/03/04/chuck-schumers-recent-tweet-asking-john-roberts-to-defend-the-independence-of-the-federal-judiciary-just-aged-horribly/">Twitchy</a>). &#8220;Now would be the time for the Chief Justice to directly and specifically defend the independence of the federal judiciary. I hope he will see fit to, and do it today.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
With President Trump publicly attacking a judge:
Now would be the time for Chief Justice Roberts to speak up.
Now would be the time for the Chief Justice to directly and specifically defend the independence of the federal judiciary.
I hope he will see fit to, and do it today. <a href="https://t.co/xspNKwRDys">pic.twitter.com/xspNKwRDys</a>
&mdash; Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1228013403219910657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 13, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But when Chief Justice Roberts defended the independence of the judiciary for a far more incendiary statement than Trump&#8217;s — the statement Wednesday by Schumer — the senator&#8217;s spokesman responded by lashing out at Roberts. The Chief Justice, Schumer&#8217;s camp suggested, was demonstrating political bias by rebuking him. The spokesman apparently forgot what Schumer himself said in the video he tweeted out in February: that Roberts has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734">rebuked</a> Trump in the past.
&#8220;This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside,” Roberts said in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-chief-justice-roberts-blasts-schumer-for-threatening-gorsuch-kavanaugh">statement</a> Wednesday. “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.”
Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman responded in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-schumer-spox-attacks-chief-justice-roberts-character-after-roberts-condemns-schumers-threats">statement</a> Wednesday: &#8220;For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ted-cruz-weighs-in-on-left-wing-responses-to-schumers-threat-against-justices">Ted Cruz Weighs In On Left-Wing Responses To Schumer’s Threat Against Justices</a>
&nbsp;

Chuck Schumer

Schumer’s Recent Tweet About Trump Comes Back To Bite Him After Threat Against Justices

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rebuked his colleague, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for telling two sitting members of the Supreme Court that they would &#8220;pay the price&#8221; if they were to rule conservatively on pending abortion cases.
Speaking on the Senate floor, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812465786/mcconnell-condemns-schumers-comments-targeting-supreme-court-justices">McConnell said</a>, “There is nothing to call this except a threat.&#8221;
&#8220;At the very best, his comments were astonishingly reckless and irresponsible,&#8221; McConnell said. &#8220;The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period.&#8221;
McConnell asked Schumer to ultimately &#8220;withdraw his comments and apologize.&#8221;
&#8220;No matter the intention, words carrying the apparent threat of violence can have horrific unintended violence,&#8221; McConnell later added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/senatemajldr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@senatemajldr</a> McConnell criticizes Schumer for his threats against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, period! There’s no other way to interpret that. <a href="https://t.co/hC0ZqtzEJx">pic.twitter.com/hC0ZqtzEJx</a>
&mdash; Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1235583773502210050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
McConnell was referring to Schumer&#8217;s fiery speech on Wednesday, in which he called out Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name, warning them of the hell that will come if they do not side with Democrats on the abortion issue.
&#8220;I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-to-call-out-schumer-for-controversial-remarks-directed-towards-supreme-court-justices">Schumer said</a>. &#8220;You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.&#8221;
Schumer, who has not apologized, later took the floor and only said that he chose the wrong words, blaming his incendiary language on his New York upbringing.
&#8220;Now I should not have used the words I used,&#8221; Schumer said. &#8220;They didn&#8217;t come out the way I intended to &#8230; I&#8217;m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language.&#8221;
Other prominent members of the Senate body rebuked Schumer for his remarks and called on him to apologize.
&#8220;At best, it was an injection of partisan politics into the process that should be immune to these justices. At worst it was a threat targeting two sitting members of the Supreme Court,&#8221; said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-senator-to-bring-motion-to-censure-schumer-democrat-suggests-he-step-down">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced on Wednesday that he would bring a motion to censure Schumer for his remarks, saying the minority leader &#8220;has no shame.&#8221;
“Now @chuckschumer is threatening Supreme Court Justices personally, to the point of implying their physical safety is endangered. Disgusting, shameful, and frankly, WEAK,” Hawley wrote on Twitter. “I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt.”
Both President Donald Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts have publicly rebuked Chuck Schumer for making the threat.
&#8220;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,'&#8221; Justice Roberts said in a statement. &#8220;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.&#8221;
&#8220;Schumer has brought great danger to the steps of the United States Supreme Court!,&#8221; tweeted President Trump.

Senate Lawmakers Hold Media Availability After Weekly Policy Luncheons

WATCH: Mitch McConnell Rebukes Chuck Schumer On The Senate Floor For Threatening SCOTUS Justices

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) appeared to threaten the two President Trump-nominated members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, during a rally in front of the nation’s highest court hosted by a left-wing abortion activist group. Prior to the intense blowback from his threatening declaration — including from Chief Justice John Roberts and President Trump — Schumer proudly promoted his appearance at the event online, but notably left out his incendiary statement directed at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
In a social media post hashtagged &#8220;MyRightMyDecision,&#8221; Schumer promoted a clip from his speech at the Center for Reproductive Rights-hosted event Wednesday, which was staged in response to the justices hearing a Louisiana abortion case.
&#8220;SCOTUS just heard the 1st big case on a woman&#8217;s right to make her own health care decisions since Justices Kavanaugh &amp; Gorsuch,&#8221; Schumer tweeted along with video of his comments. &#8220;It looks at 1 of 100s of draconian, anti-choice restrictions states tried to pass We’re here to send a message: Not on our watch!&#8221;
The clip of his remarks the senator promoted notably leaves out the comment that would set off the firestorm.
&#8220;We are here to send these folks a message: Not on my watch,&#8221; says Schumer. &#8220;So let me ask you, my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman&#8217;s right to choose? Are we going to stand quiet as they try to turn back the clock? Are we going to give up or waiver when things get tough. No! We are going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country. We are going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a woman&#8217;s right to choose. And we will win! Thank you. God bless you. On to victory everybody!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MyRightMyDecision?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MyRightMyDecision</a>
SCOTUS just heard the 1st big case on a woman&#39;s right to make her own health care decisions since Justices Kavanaugh &amp; Gorsuch
It looks at 1 of 100s of draconian, anti-choice restrictions states tried to pass
We’re here to send a message: Not on our watch! <a href="https://t.co/cdjCfe32wi">pic.twitter.com/cdjCfe32wi</a>
&mdash; Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1235280512375312384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-chuck-schumer-appears-to-threaten-supreme-court-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Schumer said a lot more at the event than he tweeted out, including a threat directed at Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
&#8220;Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench,” said Schumer. &#8220;We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights.&#8221;
&#8220;I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,&#8221; Schumer declared. &#8220;You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.&#8221;
Among those who highlighted the comments was Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise, who posted a clip of the threat and wrote, &#8220;Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where&#8217;s the media outrage?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 UNHINGED → Schumer threatened conservative justices Kavanaugh &amp; Gorsuch on the steps of the Supreme Court:
&quot;You have released the whirlwind &amp; you will pay the price. You won&#39;t know what hit you.&quot;
Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where&#39;s the media outrage? <a href="https://t.co/SiGNHxG0iX">pic.twitter.com/SiGNHxG0iX</a>
&mdash; Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1235299202542063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Chief Justice Roberts strongly condemned Schumer&#8217;s alarming declaration.
&#8220;This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside,&#8221; Roberts said in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-chief-justice-roberts-blasts-schumer-for-threatening-gorsuch-kavanaugh">statement</a> Wednesday. &#8220;Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that &#8216;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.&#8217; 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.&#8221;
A spokesman for Schumer responded Wednesday to Roberts&#8217; statement condemning the senator&#8217;s remarks by claiming that senator&#8217;s comments were deliberately misinterpreted and accusing the Chief Justice of partisanship, despite Roberts having rebuked Trump in the past over his &#8220;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734">Obama judge</a>&#8221; comment in 2018.
&#8220;For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes,&#8221; said Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-schumer-spox-attacks-chief-justice-roberts-character-after-roberts-condemns-schumers-threats">statement</a>. Schumer&#8217;s threat was &#8220;a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,&#8221; Goodman claimed, despite Schumer personally directing the threat to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
President Trump also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-calls-for-serious-action-to-be-taken-against-schumer-for-threatening-justices">rebuked</a> Schumer and called for the senator to pay a &#8220;severe price&#8221; for his actions. &#8220;There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices,&#8221; Trump tweeted Wednesday. &#8220;This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is a direct &amp; dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW! <a href="https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU">https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235359627082117120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-senator-to-bring-motion-to-censure-schumer-democrat-suggests-he-step-down">Senator To Bring Motion To Censure Schumer, Democrat Suggests He Step Down</a>
This article has been expanded to include more information.

WATCH: Schumer Pushes Video Of His Abortion Speech, Leaves Out Threat To Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) continues to face intense backlash for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday as a member of the U.S. Senate has now indicated that he intends to introduce a measure to censure Schumer.
Sen. Josh Hawley&#8217;s (R-MO) office released the following statement:
<blockquote>Tonight U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced he will introduce a motion to censure U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for inciting violence against U.S. Supreme Court Justices. In a pro-abortion rally in front of the Supreme Court today, Senator Schumer threatened Justices by name saying, “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.”</blockquote>
&#8220;Now @chuckschumer is threatening Supreme Court Justices personally, to the point of implying their physical safety is endangered. Disgusting, shameful, and frankly, WEAK,&#8221; Hawley wrote on Twitter. &#8220;I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a>
&mdash; Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1235371033592545286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jimmy Williams, a senior adviser to Democrat Tom Steyer&#8217;s failed presidential campaign, responded to Schumer&#8217;s threat by suggesting that Schumer may need to step down.
&#8220;Threatening a sitting Justice regardless of their politics is dangerous,&#8221; Williams tweeted. &#8220;What Schumer said is gross inappropriate and unacceptable. He should clarify his words immediately or step down from leadership. We must be better than this.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Tom Steyer&#39;s former senior adviser <a href="https://t.co/qc6e9HxmcY">https://t.co/qc6e9HxmcY</a>
&mdash; Cameron Cawthorne (@Cam_Cawthorne) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cam_Cawthorne/status/1235357568668774400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Leftist law professor Lawrence Tribe also hit Schumer, writing on Twitter, &#8220;These remarks by 
@SenSchumer were inexcusable. Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office.&#8221;
Democrat Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, also slammed Schumer for his remarks, saying that he sounded like a “stalker.”
“Schumer’s threat to the Court that ‘you will pay the price’ is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts,” Turley wrote “I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Schumer&#39;s threat to the Court that &quot;you will pay the price&quot; is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts. I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman.
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1235327740632588289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts also ripped Schumer, saying in a statement:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Senate Committee Holds Hearings On Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

Senator To Bring Motion To Censure Schumer, Democrat Suggests He Step Down

Josh Hawley

During oral arguments for the first Supreme Court abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, abortion activists rallied outside of the courthouse to celebrate themselves and their pro-abortion views.
According to a video segment of the event posted by <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1235319094234304514">Grabien</a>, one of the speakers, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), delivered a particularly loud sermon during which she condemned undisclosed individuals for being “obsessed” with her body, and recounted her pro-abortion clapbacks from her time as a Michigan lawmaker.
“This past year, I realized — my, my, my are they obsessed with our bodies, how we talk, how we look, what we stand for — I mean this type of policing of our bodies is so interconnected to all the social justice movements all around the country,” said Tlaib.
“You know I, in the legislature, in the Michigan legislature for six year, used to say to people, ‘Yo yo, you know what? You’re so freakin obsessed with what I decide to do with my body, maybe you shouldn’t even want to have sex with me,’ or with you, or with any woman,” Tlaib declared, as she gestured toward the cheering crowd.
According to <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/abortion-supreme-court-hears-case-louisiana-law-demonstrators-gather/">National Review</a>, the oral arguments for June Medical Services v Russo have drawn large crowds, and both pro-life activists and pro-abortion activists have rallied in front of the court house. The plaintiffs in the case have challenged a Louisiana law that requires clinics to obtain hospital admitting privileges in case of a botched abortion. 
According to Grabien, during one portion of the event, speaker Renee Brecey Sherman rallied the crowd to celebrate “future abortion providers,” and then gave a special shout-out to members of the crowd who have had abortions. 
“A special shout-out to — Where my people who’ve had abortions? Where y&#8217;all at?,” said Sherman, who received affirming shouts back from the crowd. “Nothing about this work is going to be without us! Woo!”
Sherman proceeds to explain to the crowd that having an abortion was “one of the best decisions” of her entire life. 
“So as I said, I had an abortion when I was 19. It was honestly one of the best decisions of my life. I was simply not ready to become a parent, and that’s really all you need to know,” said Sherman. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RashidaTlaib</a> at today’s abortion rally: “Yo yo, you know what, you’re so freakin&#8217; obsessed with what I decide to do with my body, maybe you shouldn’t even want to have sex with me!”
Adds that pro-life pols are “commercializing” women’s bodies to make them “less than.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/yTt10nNvdY">pic.twitter.com/yTt10nNvdY</a>
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1235319094234304514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
According to Sherman’s website, the activist has also embraced the title of the “Beyonce of Abortion Storytelling.”
As <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/justifying-abortion-to-your-kids">The Blaze</a> has previously reported, Sherman previously made other “eye-popping” pro-abortion declarations, including one in January about teaching children about abortions in an “age-approriate way.”
“I&#8217;ve talked to my 5-year-old niece about my work and abortion in an age-appropriate way. She understands that kids are a handful and sometimes people don&#8217;t want to be pregnant. She gets it because it&#8217;s quite simple,” tweeted Sherman. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I&#8217;ve talked to my 5-year-old niece about my work and abortion in an age-appropriate way. She understands that kids are a handful and sometimes people don&#8217;t want to be pregnant. She gets it because it&#8217;s quite simple.<a href="https://t.co/w4Rq6JrUP3">https://t.co/w4Rq6JrUP3</a>
— Renee Bracey Sherman (@RBraceySherman) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBraceySherman/status/1217446544842067970?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>

Lawmakers And Presidential Candidates Attend NAACP National Convention

Rashida Tlaib Rallies Abortion Activists: They ‘Shouldn’t Even Want To Have Sex With Me!’

Rashida Tlaib

President Donald Trump responded to Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) threat against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday by saying that “serious” and immediate action needed to be taken against Schumer.
“This is a direct &amp; dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer,” Trump tweeted. “If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!”
Trump’s remarks came after Schumer threatened the Supreme Court Justices earlier in the day while speaking at a far-left pro-abortion rally near the Supreme Court.
“Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights,” Schumer 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.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is a direct &amp; dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW! <a href="https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU">https://t.co/WqQUbyzaJU</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235359627082117120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump later added, &#8220;There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235370217712300038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Schumer over his remarks, saying in statement:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
A spokesperson for Schumer responded to Roberts&#8217; criticism by attacking Roberts&#8217; character, saying, &#8220;For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.&#8221;
Schumer’s spokesperson also falsely claimed, “It was a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”
The notion that Trump&#8217;s criticisms of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are on the same level as Schumer&#8217;s threats against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is false.
“‘[Supreme Court Justice Sonia] Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.’ @IngrahamAngle,” Trump tweeted late last month. “This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker’. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;.on all Trump, or Trump related, matters! While “elections have consequences”, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232155595438018567?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump’s tweets were in reference to a recent dissent by Sotomayor “against an order by the court to allow the Trump administration to proceed with a plan to deny green cards to immigrants who are deemed likely to become ‘public charges’ reliant on government aid programs,” The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html">reported</a>.
This report has been updated to include additional information.

President Donald J. Trump

Trump Calls For ‘Serious’ Action To Be Taken Against Schumer For ‘Threatening’ Justices

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) personally attacked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday after Roberts condemned &#8220;threatening&#8221; remarks that Schumer made to two Supreme Court Justices earlier in the day.
A spokesperson for Schumer said, “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing&#8217;s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
There was no misinterpretation of what Schumer said when he specifically made what were widely deemed as threats against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Schumer&#8217;s spokesperson also falsely claimed, &#8220;It was a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.&#8221;
Schumer&#8217;s exact words at the far-left pro-abortion rally were: “Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. 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.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Look at this BS. Schumer’s aide is insulting people’s intelligence by calling Schumer’s threat against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh a right-wing misinterpretation. What bunk. Schumer never mentioned Senate Republicans when he told the two justices they “won’t know what hit you.” <a href="https://t.co/aApOa6MCo2">pic.twitter.com/aApOa6MCo2</a>
&mdash; Brit Hume (@brithume) <a href="https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1235352965621391362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Roberts responded by Schumer&#8217;s comments in a statement:
<blockquote>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.&#8217;
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.</blockquote>
The notion that the comments that Trump directed at leftist Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor were on the same level as Schumer&#8217;s remarks is false as Trump did not make any threats, unlike Schumer.
“‘[Supreme Court Justice Sonia] Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.’ @IngrahamAngle,” Trump tweeted late last month. “This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker’. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;.on all Trump, or Trump related, matters! While “elections have consequences”, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232155595438018567?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump&#8217;s tweets were in reference to a recent dissent by Sotomayor &#8220;against an order by the court to allow the Trump administration to proceed with a plan to deny green cards to immigrants who are deemed likely to become ‘public charges’ reliant on government aid programs,&#8221; The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html">reported</a>.
This report has been updated to include additional information.

Lawmakers Speak to The Media After Being Briefed By VP Pence On Coronavirus During Their Weekly Policy Luncheons

Schumer Spox Attacks Chief Justice Roberts’ Character After Roberts Condemns Schumer’s Threats

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ripped Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday afternoon for threatening Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh earlier in the day.
&#8220;This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside,&#8221; Roberts said in a statement. &#8220;Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that &#8216;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.'&#8221;
&#8220;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,&#8221; Roberts continued. &#8220;All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.&#8221;
Democrat Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, also slammed Schumer for his remarks, saying that he sounded like a &#8220;stalker.&#8221;
&#8220;Schumer&#8217;s threat to the Court that &#8216;you will pay the price&#8217; is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts,&#8221; Turley wrote &#8220;I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Schumer&#39;s threat to the Court that &quot;you will pay the price&quot; is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts. I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman.
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1235327740632588289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier in the day, Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during a far-left pro-abortion rally near the Supreme Court.
“Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench,” Schumer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-chuck-schumer-appears-to-threaten-supreme-court-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh">said</a>. “We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history.”
“Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights,” Schumer continued. “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 The Daily Wire highlighted earlier in the day, Schumer&#8217;s comments come as Democrats have taken on more extreme positions on abortion in recent years, which is evidenced by the stances that the remaining 2020 Democrat presidential candidate have on the issue.
Joe Biden’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-joe-biden-stand-issues-heres-everything-josh-hammer">stance</a> on abortion:
<blockquote>Biden described himself as “personally pro-life” while nonetheless believing that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and that women have a constitutional right to abortion. For decades, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment — which prohibits federal funding of abortion — but <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48137/watch-biden-flips-using-taxpayer-money-fund-james-barrett">flipped his position</a> in 2019 to appease the hard-left Democratic activists who now comprise the base of the party.</blockquote>
Bernie Sanders’ <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-bernie-sanders-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">stance</a> on abortion:
<blockquote>Sanders is fully pro-abortion, has never voted in favor of any piece of legislation that would restrict abortion, and has recently refused to identify any piece of legislation that he might support that would restrict abortion in any conceivable way. He supports <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1136285225632370688">ending the Hyde Amendment</a>, which has historically banned taxpayer funding of abortion, and has vowed to never nominate anyone to the U.S. Supreme Court who is not adamantly in favor of Roe v. Wade.</blockquote>
Elizabeth Warren’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-elizabeth-warren-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">stance</a> on abortion:
<blockquote>Warren is adamantly pro-abortion and believes strongly that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.</blockquote>
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at Northwestern University Law School in Chicag

Chief Justice Roberts Blasts Schumer For ‘Threatening’ Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly hinted that unlike four years ago, when he sided with the conservatives on the Supreme Court on a major abortion case, he might abandon them and side with the liberal justices on the Court in a similar abortion case.
The case in question, June Medical Services v. Russo, is similar to <a href="https://casetext.com/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt">Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</a>, from 2016. Whole Woman’s Health’s background was this, as explained by <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274">oyez.org</a>:
<blockquote>In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which contained several provisions related to abortions. One such provision required that any physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed, and another provision required that all abortion clinics comply with standards for ambulatory surgical centers.
The petitioners are a group of abortion providers who sued the State of Texas seeking to invalidate those provisions in H.B. 2 as they relate to facilities in McAllen and El Paso. The petitioners argued that H.B. 2 denied equal protection, unlawfully delegated lawmaking authority, and constituted arbitrary and unreasonable state action.</blockquote>
The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which only had eight members, as Justice Antonin Scalia had died; the four liberal justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy and opposed by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. The majority held for the abortion providers; Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent that the case should never have made it to the Supreme Court because the Court normally did not permit third parties to sue in order to vindicate the rights of others.
The makeup of the Court has changed with the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch; <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-june-medical-services-russo/">CBS News</a> quavered, &#8220;The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday for June Medical Services v. Russo, a case that challenges a 2014 Louisiana law. The result could impact abortion access across the country, and advocates fear the relatively recent additions of two conservative justices make it more likely that the court upholds the law.”
<a href="https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-gee/">The Constitutional Accountability Center</a> explained June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo this way: “In June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision to uphold Louisiana’s Act 620, a law which requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/04/supreme-court-abortion-case-roberts-signals-he-could-side-with-liberals.html">According to CNBC,</a> regarding June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts “suggested that he saw that decision (Whole Women’s Health) as binding, which found that the Texas law had no medical benefits and placed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortion. Roberts twice said that the medical benefits for the Louisiana law would likely be the same.&#8221;
Democrat Louisiana state representative Katrina Jackson, who introduced Louisiana’s Act 620, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIts4te5f6Q">told CBS News</a>:
<blockquote>When a physician performs a surgery outside of a procedure outside of a hospital, a physician with admitting privileges has the ability to call ahead of time if there’s a complication and say, “I’m sending patient A, this is what happened, I believe this is what’s needed; she’s on her way in an ambulance to you, and she’s going to need emergency care and she’s going to need to be admitted. That’s when you have admitting privileges.
When you don’t, you have no connection with a hospital within a 30-mile radius, you have absolutely no connection with the hospital that your patient is being transported by emergency services to, so the doctors at the ER have to figure it out; they have to take it from the EMT instead of the physician that performed the procedure. And so I just thought it was a common sense piece of legislation; everyone would understand it regardless of what type of care you were providing to your patient you would have wanted a continuity of care.</blockquote>

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump Continues

Roberts May Switch, Join SCOTUS Liberals On Major Abortion Case, Report Says

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court gave greater latitude to states to prosecute illegal immigrants for identity theft. The case arose after Kansas prosecutors convicted three restaurant workers for using other people’s Social Security numbers.
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-gives-states-greater-rights-to-prosecute-undocumented-immigrants-11583253531">The Wall Street Journal</a> noted, “The central question in the case, Kansas v. Garcia, was whether such state prosecutions were barred by a provision of federal immigration law that says any information submitted with federal work-authorization forms can’t be used for state law-enforcement purposes.”
The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-834_k53l.pdf">syllabus</a> for the Court explained:
<blockquote>The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it unlawful to hire an alien knowing that he or she is unauthorized to work in the United States. IRCA requires employers to comply with a federal employment verification system. Using a federal work-authorization form (I–9), they “must attest” that they have “verified” that any new employee, regardless of citizenship or nationality, “is not an unauthorized alien” by examining approved documents, e.g., a United States passport or an alien registration card. IRCA concomitantly requires all employees to complete an I–9 by their first day of employment and to attest that they are authorized to work.
Every employee must also provide certain personal information, including name, ad- dress, birth date, Social Security number, e-mail address, and tele- phone number. It is a federal crime for an employee to provide false information on an I–9 or to use fraudulent documents to show work authorization.</blockquote>
It continued:
<blockquote>Kansas makes it a crime to commit &#8216;identity theft&#8217; or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents, three unauthorized aliens, were tried for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on the W–4’s and K–4’s that they submitted upon obtaining employment. They had used the same Social Security numbers on their I–9 forms. Respondents were convicted, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
A divided Kansas Supreme Court reversed, concluding that §1324a(b)(5) expressly prohibits a State from using any information contained within an I–9 as the basis for a state law identity theft prosecution of an alien who uses another’s Social Security information in an I–9. The court deemed irrelevant the fact that this information was also included in the W–4 and K–4. One justice concurred based on implied preemption.</blockquote>
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, stated, “The Kansas statutes under which respondents were convicted are not expressly preempted. IRCA’s express preemption provision applies only to employers and those who recruit or refer prospective employees and is thus plainly inapplicable … The theory that no information placed on an I–9 could ever be used by any entity or person for any reason—other than the handful of federal statutes mentioned in §1324a(b)(5)—is contrary to standard English usage.&#8221;
Alito concluded, “There is certainly no suggestion that the Kansas prosecutions frustrated any federal interests. Federal authorities played a role in all three cases, and the Federal Government fully supports Kansas’s position in this Court. In the end, however, the possibility that federal enforcement priorities might be upset is not enough to provide a basis for preemption. The Supremacy Clause gives priority to ‘the Laws of the United States,’ not the criminal law enforcement priorities or preferences of federal officers.”
The Journal noted, “The Trump administration had sided with Kansas in the case, arguing that Congress never meant to carve out an immigration-related exception that would prevent states from enforcing their own identity-theft laws.”
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

SCOTUS Rules For States Prosecuting Illegal Immigrants For Identity Theft

Illegal Immigration

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could conceivably rid the nation of ObamaCare.
Two petitions revolving around Obamacare,  one by Democratic states and one from Republican states, want the Supreme Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated Obamacare. The Court will hear oral arguments next fall.
<a href="http://amylhowe.com/2020/03/02/justices-grant-affordable-care-act-petitions/">Amy Howe</a> explains:
<blockquote>In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the court’s four more liberal justices that the mandate was constitutional because the penalty imposed on individuals who did not buy health insurance was a tax, which the Constitution allows Congress to impose. But in 2017, Congress enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance at zero – but left the rest of the ACA in place. That change led to the dispute that is now before the court: A group of states led by Texas (along with several individuals) went to federal court, where they argued that because the penalty for not buying health insurance is zero, it is no longer a tax and the mandate is therefore unconstitutional. And the mandate is such an integral part of the ACA, they contended, that the rest of the law must be struck down as well.</blockquote>
<a href="https://apnews.com/eb725376830b13e2d6f89451d4f5191b">AP added</a>, “U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed, adding that the mandate was so central to the law that without it the rest of the law must fall, too.”
Last December, the 5th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but the court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court. In January, the Democratic states asked the Supreme Court to supersede the lower courts and rule whether Obamacare is constitutional, but the Supreme Court declined.
Howe notes, “In February the federal government, Texas and other states and the individuals challenging the mandate all filed briefs opposing review. They stressed that the court should stay out of the dispute for now and instead wait for the lower courts to rule.”
But on Monday, the Supreme Court granted California’s petition for review. The justices will have to decide whether the Obamacare mandate, which Justice John Roberts voted for along with the four liberal justices on the court, is unconstitutional. The Court also granted Texas’ petition, which wants the Court to declare the district court correct when it decided Obamacare was invalid.
Roberts’ decision in 2012 to join the liberal judges on the Court and vote that the Obamacare mandate was constitutional shocked the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the other conservative justices on the Court. Jan Crawford of CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/2/">explained</a> at the time:
<blockquote>Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They&#8217;ve explained that they don&#8217;t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal. But Roberts pays attention to media coverage …
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court &#8211; and to Roberts&#8217; reputation &#8211; if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, &#8220;wobbly,&#8221; the sources said.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

Barack Obama Is Sworn In As 44th President Of The United States

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case That Might Invalidate Obamacare

Barack Obama

Obamacare

Next week, the Supreme Court will start to hear oral arguments about a massive government agency (an idea <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/20/20867899/elizabeth-warren-cfpb-founding-plans-obama-president">originally proposed by Elizabeth Warren</a> that now has <a href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201905_cfpb_FY-2018_MD-715_annual-report.pdf">roughly 1,500 employees)</a> which can affect thousands of businesses across the country without being accountable to anyone but itself.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in its present form escapes the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution and holds power to destroy businesses at will. As Oliver Dunford of the Pacific Legal Foundation wrote last October in <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/466347-supreme-court-will-take-on-fourth-branch-of-bureaucracies">The Hill</a>:
<blockquote>The CFPB may prescribe rules and regulations under various consumer-protection laws; enforce conduct that it may define as ‘unfair, deceptive or abusive’; and adjudicate its own enforcement actions and impose legal and equitable remedies. Right away, you’ll notice by that brief description that the CFPB captures the roles and responsibilities of all three branches of government under one roof. So much for separation of powers.
So let’s say your company is accused of violating a CFPB rule. The CFPB can sue you in court or — at its sole discretion — subject you to an administrative-enforcement hearing, administered by the CFPB. If you don’t like the CFPB’s in-house decision, you can appeal — to the CFPB’s director. And only after the director’s decision could you seek review in a court of law.
But the deck is stacked even then, because courts are required to defer to the CFPB’s factual findings and legal conclusions. The ultimate outcome of this concentration of discretionary power, together with its significant independence of the three traditional branches of government, is arbitrary and abusive government.</blockquote>
The Pacific Legal Foundation asked in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/109607/20190729134534667_Seila%20Law%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20July%2026%202019%20-%20Final.pdf">friend-of-the-court brief</a> in the case of Seila Law v. CFPB, “Whether the vesting of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director who cannot be removed except for cause, violates the separation of powers.”
The brief continued, “This case presents the Court with a unique and dangerous concentration of the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a single, ‘independent’ agency; an agency headed by a lone ‘Director’ empowered with vast executive discretion but protected from removal except for cause; an agency whose actions enjoy an unprecedented freedom from oversight by the government’s constitutionally vested powers. The combination of authority, discretion, and impunity in this independent power all but guarantees arbitrary governance. This is, therefore, ‘a case about executive power and individual liberty.’”
The brief added, “Created as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and its lone Director were given vast powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—along with substantial protections against interference by the three constitutional powers of government. As then-Judge Kavanaugh noted, with the exception of the President, the CFPB Director &#8216;enjoys more unilateral authority than any other official in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government.&#8217;”
More:
<blockquote>The Bureau was given vast discretion to determine how it may enact these generally applicable rules, and it is not limited to the formal rulemaking process. The CFPB is authorized to “establish the general policies of the [CFPB] with respect to all executive and administrative functions,” including “implementing the Federal consumer financial laws through rules, orders, guidance, interpretations, statements of policy, examinations, and enforcement actions.” Perhaps most troubling, this power allows the CFPB to use administrative-enforcement actions (which, as noted below, are subject to deferential judicial review), not only to enforce existing rules, but also to establish new policies—that is, to punish conduct that was, before an enforcement action, perfectly legal.
The CFPB is also largely free of congressional oversight. Most significantly, the CFPB’s budget does not go through Office of Management and Budget review, and it is not submitted to Congress for annual appropriations subject to the relative priorities of the President and Congress. Instead, the CFPB Director—alone— sets the agency’s budget; and its funds come not from Congress (pursuant to an appropriations bill signed into law by the President), but from the Federal Reserve, which “shall transfer” to the CFPB funds in “the amount [up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating budget] determined by the [CFPB] Director to be reasonably necessary” to administer the consumer-protection laws. These funding decisions are effectively unreviewable.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

Julian Castro Joins Elizabeth Warren On The Campaign Trail In Iowa

Warren-Created Agency That Targets Businesses, Accountable Only To Itself, Challenged in Supreme Court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Elizabeth Warren

Seventeen years ago, the Washington, D.C. metro area was terrorized for three weeks by sniper fire, which claimed the lives of 10 people and critically injured three others.
The culprits were John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the attacks. Muhammad was executed on November 10, 2009, while Malvo was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders violated the Eight Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, CNN <a href="https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/26/politics/supreme-court-lee-boyd-malvo-case-dc-sniper/index.html">reported</a>. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the three life sentences Malvo received in Virginia based on the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling.
The Supreme Court heard Malvo’s case last fall. Attorneys for Malvo, now 35, argued that he should be resentenced in light of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on juvenile offenders. The Supreme Case on Wednesday dismissed Malvo’s case.
“The one-sentence order, which was expected, comes two days after Virginia&#8217;s governor signed a bill making juvenile offenders who were sentenced to life imprisonment eligible for parole after serving 20 years. Both sides told the Supreme Court there was no reason to continue the case,” CNN reported.
Just because Malvo’s sentence in Virginia was reduced does not mean he will be getting out of prison anytime soon. He still has life sentences from Maryland for the people who were killed there during the 2002 attacks. More from CNN:
<blockquote>At oral arguments, Virginia argued that the sentence of life without parole could stand because Malvo&#8217;s sentence was discretionary, not mandatory.
Justice Elena Kagan had questioned, however, whether Virginia properly considered Malvo&#8217;s age. She pointed out that the 2012 decision, which she wrote, could be summarized in two words: &#8220;youth matters,&#8221; and that a sentencer must treat children differently from adult offenders.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, repeatedly questioned a lawyer for Malvo on the meaning of the court&#8217;s precedents and how they would impact cases where the judge or jury did not just consider a sentence of life without parole.</blockquote>
In response to the Supreme Court dismissing the case, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) released a statement saying the case is about more than just Malvo.
“He has counts in the state of Maryland so it would be a long time. But it’s not so much about him. It’s about the hundreds of people who are incarcerated right now and were tried as juveniles and we want them to have an opportunity for a second chance,” Northam said in the statement.
Fox 5 DC <a href="https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-sniper-case-dismissal-prompts-statement-from-virginia-gov-northam">reported</a> that former Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who prosecuted Malvo for his crimes in Maryland, made sure people knew Malvo was not getting released thanks to the latest ruling.
“Six people were murdered in Montgomery County and should have their day in court, was that we were worried and concerned about what might happen in Virginia down the road. And this has happened, so even in the event that Malvo were to be paroled, he would then have to serve six life sentences in Maryland,” Gansler said in his own statement, adding that Malvo is unlikely to be paroled and the Maryland sentences mean he’ll probably never leave prison.

Menu