Chris Coons’ Response to SCOTUS Protests Shows Why We Need to Vote Them All Out – Opinion

Becca Lower (my colleague) wrote an earlier article about Sen. Chris Coons’ remarks (D-DE). He attempted to free Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (D–NY) of his threats against Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch by deflecting towards President Donald Trump.

Coons missed a few points and was somewhat deceptive about them.

Chuck Schumer, a Supreme Court justice, said about Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh “You’ve released the whirlwind” and that they would be paying the consequences. “You won’t even know what happened to you.”

Democrat Senator Chris Coons said it was okay, because Schumer was upset and alarmed. pic.twitter.com/p3dJXRzO6U

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 12, 2022

COONS: So here’s a key distinction. Schumer said that he was angry. Schumer was worried about the possibility that justices might reverse decades-old fundamental constitutional rights in this country. What he did not say was let’s go attack them.

The January 6th hearing aims to demonstrate that this is what Trump actually did. According to Congresswoman Cheney’s words, he summoned and stirred the mob before lighting the fuse that sent them storming Capitol in the United States.

I do think there’s a distinguishable difference between what we just heard from Senator Schumer and the actions taken by former President Trump and his circle of advisors in the days before January 6th.

This lies. Trump never said “let’s go attack them” or even what Schumer said. What he did say to the people was to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

Compare Trump’s words “peacefully, patriotically”, to Schumer’s words “You will be the one paying!”

The impeachment of one of the statements was followed by crickets. pic.twitter.com/AGNXSUkV5V

— Tim Xeriland (@Xeriland) June 9, 2022

So, Trump saying act peacefully is instigating, but Schumer saying you wouldn’t know what hit you and trying to intimidate the Court to change their decisions is just fine. Is it reasonable to expect them to believe such political gibberish? There is a “distinguishable difference,” but that difference doesn’t help Schumer.

That’s another thing that they’re forgetting about here. Justices aren’t politicians. Protests are prohibited from influencing justices. People understood it was totally wrong to try to intimidate or influence a judge’s decision to make changes in the past few years. Presidents understood you weren’t even supposed to be commenting on a pending matter, as political leaders.

But here, you had the majority leader of the Senate, not only not understanding (or not caring) that he shouldn’t be doing that, but now you have Sen. Coons and others trying to absolve Schumer. It was a threat. More than just a threat, it was an intent to persuade them to alter their decision. And he did so on the Supreme Court’s steps. If you read 18 U.S.C Section 1507, Schumer’s actions could fit within the parameters of that law; he was doing what it was trying to prohibit.

Fox’s Bret Baier asked Coons about the law, but Coons refuses to say whether the law should be enforced or to criticize the greater effort to intimidate the justices.

Democrat Senator Chris Coons wouldn’t confirm if he feels that those who protest illegally in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes should be detained.

“As an elected representative, I have certainly faced protests outside my house.” pic.twitter.com/3AlTNPuhbS

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 12, 2022

Coons downplays it, saying he’s had protesters at his house. But it’s not the same thing, and they are not trying to improperly influence your judicial decision.

Democrats are wrong, not just because they’re ignoring the law and excusing allegedly illegal behavior, but also because the whole thing is wrong and improper, to begin with, as an improper effort to influence the justices. Not only are they not condemning that, but they’re also encouraging it by continuing to encourage such protests.