Schumer's SCOTUS Comments Were Designed To Mislead the Public


“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

With arms gesticulating wildly and angled toward the Supreme Court’s entrance, Senator Charles Ellis (“Chuck”) Schumer of New York spat out his venom, threatening two recently appointed justices with “who knows what.”

In levying the threat, the Senate minority leader stripped these two new justices of their titles (or any other honorifics), evidencing disrespect for their positions. Thus, Schumer treated these two justices as if they were mere pretenders, similar to the way that Hillary Clinton claims that President Trump was never really elected president.

After suffering blowback, even from stalwart pro-abortion, leftist groups like the American Bar Association, Schumer now claims what he really meant was the justices would pay a “political” price. Is that plausible?

Certainly, the House could impeach these justices, but as a senator, Schumer would have no role in that. Schumer cannot reduce the salary of justices or shorten their terms. So what could he mean?

Man Who Tried to Shoot Rittenhouse and Ended Up Shot Himself Lands in News Again Under His New Name: Report

The most logical interpretation is that these words were meant to be some type of threat of force or violence. In 2020, we are replete with video footage by journalist Andy Ngo and others being attacked by antifa in Portland, the hidden videos of Bernie Sanders’ campaign staffers threatening violence and attacks on those wearing Trump garb.

As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell analyzed what Schumer said: There is “nothing to call this except a threat.”

It is not, however, the two new justices who should “pay the price” for having “released the whirlwind” currently threatening women’s so-called “reproductive rights.” They were not on the court 47 years ago when Roe v. Wade was decided and Justice Harry Blackmun falsely promised that the Court would decide the matter by “constitutional measurement.”

But it was never about the Constitution, in Roe or at any time since. Being new to the court, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh cannot be blamed for the dozens of abortion cases decided since Roe that actually have strayed even further away from the Constitution than Roe, if that were possible.

Rather, it is the pro-abortion justices on the court who released the whirlwind — on babies, and also on wounded mothers and fathers who only later realized what they had done. It is the high court that gratuitously imposed in Roe v. Wade upon the American people a “constitutional right” to an abortion based on neither constitutional text nor reason, neither law nor fact, but based wholly on emotion and predilection.

What then was the reason for Schumer’s outburst against the two most recent appointees to the court? This was no accident in carefully scripted 2020 Washington, D.C. These words were meant to inflame the crowds, exactly as they did on the Supreme Court steps.

And, importantly, Schumer’s impassioned accusation was designed to confuse the public by making it appear that the Supreme Court in the June Medical Services case being argued could ban abortion in every state overnight simply by overturning Roe v. Wade. That would be, politely stated, a pack of lies. But this is what many people think.

It certainly is past time for the Supreme Court to be set free from its mistaken abortion jurisprudence, and to forsake its misbegotten quest for a nationwide abortion policy.

But even if the high court were to overturn the unprincipled evil decision of Roe v. Wade and its progeny, it would not mean that abortion would be criminalized in all 50 states. Rather, it would return the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs.

Op-Ed: Reject Democrats' Efforts to Turn American Citizenship Into Another Handout

Before Roe, abortion was a state issue, and after Roe, it would again be a state issue, as Chuck Schumer well knows. It was the abortion lobby that used the court to nationalize the issue by striking down a Texas state law against abortion.

Now, as a pro-abortion political rabble-rouser, Schumer would therefore prefer to perpetuate the mistaken public perception that the law governing abortion in Texas must be the same as in Louisiana and that a repeal of Roe would ban abortion in states like New York, where it is legal in the extreme.

If there were any honesty left in Washington, our political leaders would make clear that even if the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, there is no law banning abortion in New York and the many other states where friends of the abortion industry have taken power and repealed anti-abortion laws.

The laws of those liberal jurisdictions would be untouched, lying outside the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and the lower federal courts created by Congress.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , ,
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School. He practices constitutional law with Bill Olson, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Louisiana law in June Medical Services v. Russo. They can be reached at or

Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. He practices constitutional law with Herb Titus, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Louisiana law in June Medical Services v. Russo. They can be reached at or