|Email Ken Stallings||A Threat Against the Court|
In the matter of the law, nothing is more outrageous than for someone to threaten the sanctity of the court. Of the three branches of our federal government, the one branch most acutely entrusted to preserve liberty is our court system, for that is the branch that peacefully settles natural conflicts of rights, ruling which side's rights are the most important, and therefore who's actions are to be sanctioned, with the goal of preserving the most liberty.
With that duty in mind, anyone who overtly threatens the court, for any reason, is guilty of serious threat against our Constitution. The action is further cited in federal statute:
"Whoever threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished (by) a fine under this title." -- 18 US Code 115.
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democrat Minority Leader of the Senate, made a statement now widely condemned as an overt threat against two named Justices of the US Supreme Court, while standing outside the Supreme Court building, while that court was hearing a case under its judicial review. His speech included this statement by him to the crowd:
"I want to tell you, (Neil) Gorsuch. I want to tell you (Brett) 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." -- Senator Chuck Schumer
For a moment, let's put aside the shrill nature of the outrageous comment. The media consistently fails to mention a very salient fact. Abortions are of dubious morality under the best of circumstances, but it is proven fact that more female babies are aborted than are male, and therefore this specious link between abortion rights and women's rights is quite appalling. For all it's politicizing of the issue, our media does a pitiful job of bringing that logical disconnect to the fore. There is no more central right than life itself, so it seems beyond questionable to equate killing females with the preservation of women's rights!
There is great agreement across political lines that, given the advance of medical science to see babies born in the third trimester thrive, that killing these babies vice delivering them is amoral and unacceptable. Yet, the Democrat party now openly espouses the platform that abortion is solely the judgment of the mother, and is a presumed right to kill, remaining in force right up until the moment of delivery. Some even argue for a presumed right to kill the infant, or just let it die devoid of medical care, even upon live delivery. Most people rightly call that infanticide, and up until some outrageous Democrat sponsored state laws, it was universally considered the most evil form of murder.
Partial birth abortion is regularly condemned by most doctors for the sound reason that there is more outright risk to the mother by performing partial birth abortion than in a c-section birth. So, any claim that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect the life and health of the mother is seen by nearly all doctors as medically unsound. A baby delivered by c-section after the sixth month of gestation is highly likely to thrive, and be put up for adoption by legions of would-be parents most eager for children of their own.
So, there is no medical indication for partial birth abortion, nor is there any moral basis to claim that a third trimester pregnancy is an undue burden on the mother. A mother not wishing any parental responsibility can give birth via c-section, and have the baby made a ward of the state for adoption. Every state in America has well organized options for this outcome.
The left's obsession with the so-called right to choose abortion has exhausted all logical and moral arguments, as medical science has advanced in its ability to care for premature babies. When Rove v Wade was decided on dubious legal grounds, there were few viable options for premature infants to survive. That has radically changed for the better since the 1973 landmark case.
Let's return now to Schumer's statements to the pro-abortion crowd assembled to hear him speak. One can logically argue that Schumer didn't mean it literally when he used the phrase, "You won't know what hit you," but when his staff was given the chance to backtrack, they instead doubled down, refusing to apologize, and instead calling Chief Justice John Robert's unprecedented public condemnation as following "the right wing's deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said," and then adding, "Justice Roberts does not call balls and strikes." Truth is, vice any regret, Schumer's staff then openly questioned the judicial fitness of a third Supreme Court Justice!
Even liberal law professors have condemned Schumer. Lawrence Tribe -- a constant critic of Donald Trump -- said, "These remarks by Senator Schumer 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."
Tribe's comments were written many hours ago, and neither Schumer nor his staff have issued any statements of regret, retraction, or apology. One suspects none will be forthcoming.
In the history of the Congress and the White House, no senior official has ever before so outrageously threatened even one Supreme Court Justice, much less three of them. Schumer's conduct is singular, and can logically be considered public incitement for mob violence against at least two members of the US Supreme Court. Moreover, these incitements were uttered to intimidate the court into a selfishly desired outcome. It was a stake to the heart of an independent court system. It cannot stand, and it must be forcefully punished. A logical argument can be made that he violated the most lenient portions of 18 USC 115, and would be subject to possible fine. At minimum, he should be formally censured by the US Senate, and he should be disbarred from the New York State Bar Association.
The political left has many times now gone too far. They threaten our government, our Constitution, and our fundamental liberties in dangerous ways. Those of us who believe in liberty cannot remain silent. Whether terrorist actions by Antifa, acts of violence in public places by individuals who think themselves empowered to threaten and harm, or even public calls for violence by elected leaders who should all know better, the situation with America's left has spiraled out of control. Mob rule is in evidence, and good people must act now to apply the law fairly to sanction the conduct of those for whom liberty is no longer an entrusted value.
If we don't act to protect liberty now, we may find ourselves past the point where it can be protected by civil means. It would be beyond tragic to see uncivil means therefore become the necessary last resort. Let's instead apply our lawful remedies now against those who need them. We've been patient long enough.
-- Ken Stallings
This column is copyrighted under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and all rights are reserved. Please do not re-transmit, host, or download these columns without my written permission.