Schumer’s Credibility: Hanging by a Threat
At the end of last year, the Senate passed a bill that suddenly feels very ironic: the Security for Supreme Court Justices Act. With the country so divided, both parties seemed concerned the justices didn’t have enough protection. Four months later, who could have dreamed the people they needed protection from *were the Senate’s own members*?
At the end of last year, the Senate passed a bill that suddenly feels very ironic: the Security for Supreme Court Justices Act. With the country so divided, both parties seemed concerned the justices didn’t have enough protection. Four months later, who could have dreamed the people they needed protection from were the Senate’s own members?
Before Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood on the Supreme Court steps and threatened two men inside, he voted for that bill. Then, in a moment that revealed the nature of the abortion debate itself, Senator Schumer whipped into a euphoric rant for abortion rights went about proving why additional security was necessary when he issued this sinister warning. “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.”
Around the country, a stunned silence seemed to fall. Even the media was taken aback, shocked by the implications of Schumer’s threat. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding the severity of the situation, wasted no time issuing a rare public statement. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
From all corners, the horror at what Schumer had implied was almost universal. Fellow senators and congressmen were aghast. “Now Chuck Schumer is threatening Supreme Court justices personally, to the point of implying their physical safety is endangered. Disgusting, shameful, and frankly weak,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who has a deeply personal understanding about the price of this kind of vitriol, called Schumer unhinged. “Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where’s the media’s outrage?”
Liberals, like Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, didn’t spare the minority leader either. “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.” Even the American Bar Association, which is no friend to conservatives, issued a scathing statement, explaining how “deeply troubled” they are that the Senate minority leader would threaten “two sitting justices… over their upcoming votes in a pending case. Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats — whether real or allegorical.”
After sleeping on it, Senator Schumer finally issued an apology Thursday morning, insisting his threat was actually directed at Republicans (as if that’s somehow better). “My point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justice, stripped away a women’s right to choose.” He said he regretted his choice of words, but to suggest this was a physical warning “is a gross distortion.”
As damage control strategies go, it was a nice try. But there’s no disputing who Schumer was addressing or what he was inferring. Also, these are two members of the Supreme Court, appointed for life. What possible “political” consequences could he have meant except violence? And while we’re on the subject of revisionist history, the case in question had nothing to do with a “woman’s right to choose.” In fact, it had nothing to do with abortion at all — except for how negligent its providers are.
And that’s where this story takes an interesting twist. Schumer wasn’t outside the court railing about a challenge to Roe v. Wade. He was railing at a law whose only purpose is to make the hospital transfer faster if an abortion goes wrong — like if a woman bleeds out, as she did here. Or if her uterus is punctured, like here. Think about that. The Democratic Party is so outraged at the thought of protecting patients’ lives that they’re willing to threaten two others’. It’s astounding. They don’t just mind hurting women — they want to hurt whoever disagrees with them. If you’re looking for the party of violence, my friends, you found it.
“Sadly, this attack,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor yesterday, “was not some isolated incident. The Left-wing campaign against the federal judiciary did not begin yesterday.” To most Americans, it’s as fresh as Brett Kavanaugh’s nightmarish confirmation. But, McConnell promised, “As long as this majority holds the gavel, we will never let the Minority Leader’s dangerous views become policy. This majority will ensure the only casualties of this recklessness are the reputations of those who engage in it.”
For an inside look at Wednesday’s oral arguments and what’s at stake, don’t miss the column from FRC’s Katherine Johnson, “Let the States Protect Women” in the Washington Examiner.
Originally published here.
Arizona Wrestles with Dems over Sports
Ten years ago, it might have taken six minutes to debate a bill like this — if there was any debate at all. But this is 2020, when the conversations about something as straightforward as gender takes as many as six hours. Now, instead of overwhelming consensus on an issue that wouldn’t have been an issue before, the margins are razor thin. Just how far has the cult of transgenderism gone? Not a single Democrat in the Arizona House voted Wednesday to protect women’s sports. Fortunately for the state’s girls, every Republican did — and the only hope for school athletics moved on to the other chamber.
“This bill is about fairness,” State Rep. Nancy Barto ® argued. “That’s it. What’s fair on the field, the court, the track, and in the pool…” Barto, like a lot of moms, is sick and tired of people trying to turn the debate over girls’ sports into something it’s not. She sat on the House floor this week, listening to the other side twist and distort what her bill does for almost an entire working day. “We separated male and female sports for a reason,” she insisted. “Biological differences.” That’s not mean or intolerant — that’s reality.
As the mom of three girls, she understands the frustration of teenagers like Grace, who are being forced to play softball against members of the opposite sex. Grace used to trusting the competitive system. Now, she’s realized, “I cannot trust an equal playing field in Arizona.” She talked about walking onto the field and how deflating it was to face a male player. “Sure enough," she testified, the "opposing team won. The boy gave them an edge, both physically and mentally that we could not match… It’s not right that years of hard work can be wasted; games, championships, and titles lost; and coveted spots on top teams gone — and the results known even before we take the field.”
Under Barto’s legislation, every K-12 school, every community college, and state universities would no longer let biological males compete on girls’ teams. “This bill is not anti-anything. It’s pro-woman and pro-girl.” State Democrats disagreed, blasting Barto for “policing gender” and being insensitive to trans-identifying kids. But the bill’s sponsor wasn’t about to back down. “Opponents continue to ignore the elephant in the room — the innate biological differences between the sexes — and instead are ginning up the political rhetoric with name-calling as if the bill is anti-trans or LGBT — but that’s simply not the case. Even many trans individuals and liberal feminists agree that a level playing field for women’s sports must be preserved to ensure the future of Title IX and women’s athletic and educational opportunities. It preserves privacy and it preserves sports opportunities for everyone — in the appropriate sex classifications.”
In the end, the bill passed — no thanks to Democrats, who voted to end all the progress women have made in the last 50 years. But Arizona Republicans aren’t alone in their rush to protect girls from the .6 percent of the population trying to destroy half of the sporting world. A whopping 18 states are moving similar proposals forward, desperate to stop the bleeding before talented girls lose more championships, scholarships, and promising futures.
But if they’re looking for an ally in Nike, forget it. The retail giant, who’s becoming the far-Left’s most reliable activist (when it isn’t busy oppressing China’s Uyghurs, that is), sent a trans-identifying athlete to testify against a similar bill in Idaho as a spokesperson of the company! Apparently, one of the biggest manufacturers of sports equipment doesn’t mind alienating half of its market. Like most of Big Business, their progressive feminist cred is just a front to pursue the most radical LGBT policy there is. And if softball players, foster kids, and persecuted minorities are the collateral damage, so be it.
For more information or to find out what your state is doing to protect girls, check out Save Women’s Sports.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
