The political prosecutions are beginning. Shumer first target

[Axulus]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

 

[southernhybrid]

Are we surprised? I read the article yesterday. With Trump, it's all about revenge against anyone that investigated or criticized him in any way. Unless Congress finds some courage, nothing will change. And this is the party that claims to be trying to decrease government waste. I guess it's okay to waste money doing mindless investigations against your critics.

 

[thebeave]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

 

[Axulus]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

It is commonly understood that "Pay the ultimate price" is meant imply loss of life. "Pay the price" commonly means any negative consequence that is a direct result of ones own actions. Under no reasonable analysis can these words be thought of as likely to provoke a clear and present danger to the justices.

Trump hired this guy specifically because he was vigorous at promising to go after Trump's enemies. It doesn't require a direct order from Trump to know what Trump wants and what will be pleasing to him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Well, "pay the price" likely can be sussed out by not pretending that was the end of what he was saying.

Now we stand here today because behind me, 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. ...

From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas — Republican legislatures are waging 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.

The bottom line is very simple: we will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you’re gonna be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now, ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far-right? You’re gone in November.

The price is the GOP being booted from power, because the people won't accept these restrictions on women's rights (turned out the economy was more important to most women than their bodies in '24).

Schumer stepped back his statement afterwards, realizing he did overstep conventional decorum. Something that has been easier to fall into with Trump in politics.

 

[thebeave]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

It is commonly understood that "Pay the ultimate price" is meant imply loss of life. "Pay the price" commonly means any negative consequence that is a direct result of ones own actions. Under no reasonable analysis can these words be thought of as likely to provoke a clear and present danger to the justices.

Trump hired this guy specifically because he was vigorous at promising to go after Trump's enemies. It doesn't require a direct order from Trump to know what Trump wants and what will be pleasing to him.

So, in your own words, what might "pay the price" mean, if not some sort of threat or actual violence? What kinds of things might Schumer have intended to do to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

It is commonly understood that "Pay the ultimate price" is meant imply loss of life. "Pay the price" commonly means any negative consequence that is a direct result of ones own actions. Under no reasonable analysis can these words be thought of as likely to provoke a clear and present danger to the justices.

Trump hired this guy specifically because he was vigorous at promising to go after Trump's enemies. It doesn't require a direct order from Trump to know what Trump wants and what will be pleasing to him.

So, in your own words, what might "pay the price" mean, if not some sort of threat or actual violence? What kinds of things might Schumer have intended to do to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

Would you give a single shit if the person saying this was a Republican? Nope.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Guys, guys we need to super care about civility and stuff. Anyway any time the anti-woke side is uncivil we don't give a shit.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh yeah, and I get to accuse people of having "TDS" whenever I want to. That's totally being civil.

 

[TomC]

So, in your own words, what might "pay the price" mean, if not some sort of threat or actual violence? What kinds of things might Schumer have intended to do to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

I do hope you looked at JH, post #5, as it was very enlightening and much better matches what I know about Schumer.

It would also be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of threats from folks like him vs from folks like Musk, Trump, and Vance.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Schumer stepped back his statement afterwards, realizing he did overstep conventional decorum.

… something the apricot has never had the decency to do.

Something that has been easier to fall into with Trump in politics.

QFT

 

[KCFlyer]

Are we surprised? I read the article yesterday. With Trump, it's all about revenge against anyone that investigated or criticized him in any way. Unless Congress finds some courage, nothing will change. And this is the party that claims to be trying to decrease government waste. I guess it's okay to waste money doing mindless investigations against your critics.

This is the only reason Trump wanted to be elected and it is why he tolerates Musk's shenanigans. If his tariffs tank the economy and Musk tanks the country, he won't give a shit because he's getting his revenge, he is old, and he only gives a shit about the here an now and doesn't care if history remembers him as the president that ended the country.

 

[KCFlyer]

realizing he did overstep conventional decorum.

Does that even exist with Trump? He oversteps conventional decorum on a daily basis.

 

[KCFlyer]

Does "pay the price" mean violence

It means the same thing as "fight like hell". And those that followed those directions were all pardoned.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Does "pay the price" mean violence

It means the same thing as "fight like hell". And those that followed those directions were all pardoned.

It’s certainly no worse than saying “trial by combat” on Jan 6, 2021.

 

[laughing dog]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

It is commonly understood that "Pay the ultimate price" is meant imply loss of life. "Pay the price" commonly means any negative consequence that is a direct result of ones own actions. Under no reasonable analysis can these words be thought of as likely to provoke a clear and present danger to the justices.

Trump hired this guy specifically because he was vigorous at promising to go after Trump's enemies. It doesn't require a direct order from Trump to know what Trump wants and what will be pleasing to him.

So, in your own words, what might "pay the price" mean, if not some sort of threat or actual violence? What kinds of things might Schumer have intended to do to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

Since Mr Schumer did not say nor imply he would make anyone “pay the price”, your questions seem to even more desperate attempts to defend this DA’s actions.

For years, politicians of all stripes have used inflammatory and violent rhetoric. Mr Trump is an exemplar in this category. You may correct my faulty memory, but I don’t recall any such pearl-clutching from you during any of Mr Trump’s tirades.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Does "pay the price" mean violence

It means the same thing as "fight like hell". And those that followed those directions were all pardoned.

And don't forget that time he tweeted a video of a supporter saying "the only good democrat is a dead democrat". Not a peep from the right wing about how uncivil that was. But oh somehow it's a problem if a democrat merely says "pay the price".

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not that common sense plays a role in government these days, but what total douchenozzledom. Those justices HAVE paid a price; the entire court is now at its lowest level of respect ever. And it's due, almost entirely, to the evasions, corruption, and iron-fisted rulings of the conservative majority.
If we're looking for threats, here's Trump in North Carolina in August 2016, railing about Hillary's threat to gun ownership:
"By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know."
Golly, could Donald be in trouble??? Call your representatives. Don't let them come after Donald!!

 

[Toni]

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been quietly pushing to present evidence against Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to a federal grand jury over comments he made about Supreme Court justices in 2020, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Martin has made clear his hopes of investigating whether the remarks made five years ago by Mr. Schumer amounted to threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Mr. Schumer said at the rally, addressing his remarks to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

The party of free speech is ramping up its efforts to send government goons after enemies on the pretext of speech they don't like.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't see all the details. Specifically, did Trump initiate this investigation as suggested? Secondly, its not clear that what Schumer said is protected by the 1A. They do sound a bit like "fighting words". I don't find it implausible that a particularly passionate person could take Schumer's words to heart and do something violent and tragic. Does "pay the price" mean violence or is he just somehow going to force a justice to resign? Or maybe harrass his family? There have been a few cases of judges getting murdered by people who didn't like their rulings, so killing a judge is not unheard of.

Does the First Amendment Protect Threats and Hate Speech?

Fighting Words​

In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”

The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.

The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.

Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites 'fighting words' as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.

Happy to help: Here’s a link to a free copy:

U.S. Attorney Rebuffed by Justice Dept. in Push to Escalate Inquiry Into Schumer

Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ideologyhunter]

Oh yeah, and I get to accuse people of having "TDS" whenever I want to. That's totally being civil.

The TDS -- which a certain member uses on me all the time -- doesn't bother me, as it's soooo lame and shows how unresourceful the Trumpies are. 'Cause that belongs to us, from 15 years ago, when it was called Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Anyway, it gives you the excuse to inform them that they have TAAS, where the AA is aiding and abetting.