Sen. Chuck Schumer roasted while addressing crowd: “You ain’t doing sh-t. Stop lying to the people.”

Share:

During a recent press briefing on the Supreme Court vacancy, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) was interrupted by a heckler who shouted, “Stop lying to the people!”

The Hill reported that Schumer was addressing a crowd outside of the Capitol, condemning the Republicans’ decision to move forward with confirming a Supreme Court justice just 42 days ahead of the election.

Schumer was also criticizing the Republicans for their COVID-19 response.

Schumer was saying:

“We Democrats are fighting as hard as we can to protect Americans and we need Americans….”

The heckler shouted:

“You ain’t doing (expletive). Stop lying to the people. Stop lying to the people.”

Another person randomly shouted:

“Jesus saves. Jesus saves. Jesus loves you guys.”

Schumer responded by saying, “Thank you” and then continued addressing the crowd. The incident came hours after Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) announced that he will vote on a Supreme Court nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

He said in a statement:

“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent.”

He added:

“The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee, but does confirm a nominee of its own.”

Allegedly, Trump’s nominee will require a simply majority for confirmation. The time frame is typically two to three months, but Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, can fast-track that process should he want to.

In the wake of the untimely passing of Ginsburg, Trump announced that he will name his nomination on Saturday, September 26th. Federal appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Logoa are said to be on his list of five finalists.

Schumer said while he addressed the crowd in front of the Capitol:

“The American people don’t want Republicans to move forward with a confirmation. They know this is wrong.”

He added:

“Because the Senate Republicans have no respect for the institution, we won’t have business as usual here in the Senate.”

Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy after the caucus blocked Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing in 2016, nine months before that presidential election.

Schumer when on to say:

“Nothing is off the table for next year if Republicans take steps to fill Ginsburg’s seat before the election.”

After the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, then-President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

Back then, McConnell opposed holding hearings for Garland saying:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.”

At that time, Schumer, who was not yet the Senate minority leader, joined the Senate Democrats’ campaign, attempting to galvanize support for the Garland nomination and to pressure McConnell into beginning confirmation proceedings.

Schumer has since become the leader of Democrats in the Senate.

In January 2017, Schumer said:

“The consequences are gonna be down the road. We’re not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail.”

The evolution follows a concurrent shift in top Sen. McConnell who has made appointing justices to the high court a cornerstone of his tenure leading the Senate during the Trump presidency.

In 2018, when asked if the Republican-controlled Senate would fill a vacant Supreme Court seat during a presidential year, McConnell said:

“Uh, we’d fill it.”

In the hours after Ginsburg’s death, Schumer began urging Senate Republicans and Trump to not fill the vacancy until after the election.

He said:

“She said, ‘My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.’ We believe her and so do the American people.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Here is another article form Law Enforcement Today on the Democrats trying to keep Trump from filling the Supreme Court vacancy:

WASHINGTON, DC –Democrats have been vocal on their disdain of President Donald Trump since he was only a candidate in 2015. 

Since then, they have lobbed every attack that they could, including impeachment, to stop him and all attacks, so far, have failed. 

Now, Democrats are threatening full out war if the President dare move to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

Along with threatening to pack the Supreme Court with additional seats that will be filled with liberal judges if they get in full power (both seats in the House as well as the Presidency), they are now talking about adding two states to the Union that would most likely be always filled with democrats. 

In addition, they’d abolish the filibuster rule.  Any one of these moves would almost certainly ensure they have full and complete power forever.

Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Member Richard Blumenthal has said that there are no options that are off limits should President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell go through with filling the vacant seat this close to the election. 

Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, (who is still in the middle of the hairgate scandal) announced that her caucus may consider impeaching President Trump, again, if he follows through. 

Not sure how nominating a Supreme Court Justice would fit a high crime and misdemeanor, but having one did not seem to matter when they impeached the President the first time.

In addition, Pelosi also mentioned that they may try to impeach the Attorney General, William Barr.  Pelosi said:

“Well, we have our options.  We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now.”

Democratic State Representator Joe Kennedy, III, sounded like a spoiled brat not getting the gift that he wanted for his birthday when he threatened to add additional seats to the Supreme Court.  He said:

“If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame-duck session – before a new Senate and President can take office – then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”

Simply wanting to add more liberal justices to the Supreme Court is not enough. 

To add additional seats, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was against, would take Presidential approval.  Something that Democratic Presidential Nominee has said in the past he opposes. 

Another option that the democrats have is to abolish the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster from occurring, something that they had recently threatened prior to Ginsberg’s death.  This would ensure that any matter coming up for vote, as long as they are in power, will solely be controlled by the democrats.

Democrats had already started working on ending the filibuster in anticipation of a major victory against Republicans in November.  They fully anticipate sweeping the election and taking power in both seats of the House and the Presidency.  NBC News said

“Veteran party operatives, activist groups and supportive senators are coordinating message and strategy to dial up the pressure to quickly end the 60-vote threshold early next year, fearing that preservation of the rule will enable Republicans to kill Joe Biden’s legislative agenda in its cradle.”

Another option would be to allow Washington DC and Puerto Rico to become a state.  In doing so, they would most assuredly guarantee that senators elected to represent those areas would be democrats.  Thus, giving them the majority, most likely in every single election.  Axios said:

“Democrats are talking anew about pushing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.  Capturing the anything-goes spirit among Democrats amid the Supreme Court fight, one party strategist texted me: ‘Guam want in?”

After Ginsburg’s death, Democrat presidential nominee, Joe Biden called on President Donald Trump to hold off on naming the replacement, as other Democrats draw parallels to the nomination of Garland by former president Barack Obama.

Biden recently tweeted:

“Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.”

Backtracking to 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, both the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that a replacement should not be seated until after the presidential election.

However, in a recent resurfaced 2016 op-ed, then-Vice President Joe Biden wrote that he was “surprised and saddened” that Republicans would not consider a SCOTUS nomination from then-President Barack Obama. Back then he declared that the president had a “constitutional duty” to seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy arises. He said:

“The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.”

Biden added:

“It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear to an oath to uphold and defend. That’s why I was so surprised and saddened to see Republican leaders tell President Obama and me that they would not even consider a Supreme Court nominee this year.”

He continued:

“No meetings. No hearings. No votes. Nothing. It is an unprecedented act of obstruction and it risks a stain on the legacy of all those complicit on carrying out this plan.”

Even in a speech that he gave at Georgetown University, Biden said:

“I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even with a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice and not merely consent of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

Now, in 2020 with Ginsburg’s passing, Biden has made a complete 180-degree turn. He is now echoing the words of his then boss, former president Obama. After Scalia’s death, Obama declared that he had a duty to nominate a successor. Obama wrote back in 2016:

“The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.”

And now, just like Biden, Obama has flip-flopped on the issue solely because a Republican president is in office and the GOP controls the Senate. Obama said in a statement:

“Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.”

Following the death of Justice Scalia, Biden slammed Republicans who said they would not consider a nomination from Obama ahead of the 2016 election. He wrote:

“I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency, but there is nothing in the Constitution or our history to support this view.”

President Trump has said that he will nominate a female judge to replace Ginsburg, adding that Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa are on his short list. He said that he has an “obligation” to fill the seat “without delay.” He said:

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman. A very talented, very brilliant woman.”

He said in a statement:

“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Here is another article from Law Enforcement Today about the Supreme Court and their influence on the country:

WASHINGTON, D.C.- At least the Supreme Court is still on the side of law and order…at least for now. The high court on Monday refused to give reconsideration to immunity from lawsuits, otherwise known as qualified immunity, given to police officers as well as other public officials who are accused of misconduct.

The decision by the justices not to hear cases on qualified immunity during their next term comes on the heels of the George Floyd death, who died in police custody last month in Minneapolis. Floyd’s death has led to some peaceful protests across the U.S., but also a large number of violent riots that led to looting and widespread damage in cities from New York to Los Angeles.

Over recent years, the court has set a rather high bar for the pursuit of lawsuits stemming from official misconduct. MSN reports that in order to do so, an officer’s conduct must violate “clearly established” laws or constitutional rights, which courts have found seldom happens, specifically because almost every allegation is different.

Judges in lower courts, however as well as legal experts from both sides of the political spectrum have questioned the principle of qualified immunity, which they claim creates an impossible standard for victims to meet, and which they claim offers near “blanket immunity for those accused of misconduct.”

Ironically, one of the most conservative justices on the high court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision not to hear a new case on the doctrine. The case involved a burglar who had surrendered and was bitten by a police dog.

“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” he wrote. “Because our…qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition.”

Chief Justice John Roberts typically prefers smaller steps to big changes in court precedent. The fact that the court refused to hear this particular case is not necessarily an indication that it may not revisit qualified immunity down the road and either abolish it completely or scale it back significantly.

Prior to the most recent event in Minneapolis, justices had considered numerous petitions involving qualified immunity for public officials.

For example, the case cited above involved a man in Tennessee who was sitting with his hands in the air when he was bitten by a police K9.

Yet another case involved a 10-year-old Georgia boy who was shot while in his backyard while police were pursuing an unarmed criminal suspect.

Finally, in the third incident in California, police who were searching for a known gang member used tear gas grenades to try to flush the man out, as opposed to using a house key that provided to them by his ex-girlfriend.

 The ACLU chimed in about qualified immunity, highlighting both the court’s decision on police accountability and the responsibility of Congress to abolish the doctrine.

David Cole, national legal director for the ACLU said, “We have seen the deadly consequences play out on the streets, and Black Americans have largely paid the price. Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to stand up for the rule of law and abolish qualified immunity—for anyone acting under color of law—to close the loophole allowing government officials to escape accountability for violating constitutional rights.”

The conservative leaning Supreme Court has been generous to police and public officials and has offered significant leeway where their conduct has come into question.

  • This past February, the court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager shot and killed by the U.S. Border Patrol cannot seek damage because of the border that was between them (agents were on U.S. side, teenager on Mexican side).
  • In 2017, the court ruled officials from the Bush administration could not be held liable for the detention and harsh treatment of illegal immigrants in the days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  • In 2015, the justices said that California police were entitled to immunity after they forcibly entered the room of a woman with a mental disability and shot her.

A University of Chicago Law School professor, who specializes in qualified immunity, found that 30 cases spanning three decades showed that the Supreme Court had only found that official misconduct violated clearly established law only two times.

Thomas, clearly the court’s most conservative member has said that the qualified immunity doctrine has no historical basis, and in a 2017 case, he said the court routinely substitutes “our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress.”

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who represents the liberal wing of the court said in 2015 that the court’s “one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”

House Democrats have proposed eliminating qualified immunity in its recent criminal justice reform bill, called the Justice in Policing Act of 2020. The bill comes on the heels of the George Floyd case.

Meanwhile, Republicans are expected to introduce their own proposal in the coming weeks. That bill is expected to address use of force, de-escalation tactics and improvements to federal data collection. That portion is expected to mirror part of the Democrats plan which is looking to create a national database to log police misconduct complaints. Qualified immunity has not been mentioned in any discussion of Republican plans.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany has said that the elimination of qualified immunity for police is a “non-starter” for President Trump.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

 

 

Share:
Related Posts