Fact Check: Schumer's Threatening Remarks About Justices Led to Public Backlash
What We Know
In March 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made remarks during a rally outside the Supreme Court that were interpreted as threatening towards Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. He stated, "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" (source-2). Following these comments, there was significant backlash from various political figures, including Senator Thom Tillis, who condemned Schumer's remarks as "beyond disgusting and dangerous" (source-1). Additionally, Chief Justice John Roberts remarked that such threatening statements from high-ranking officials are "not only inappropriate, they are dangerous" (source-2).
Analysis
The backlash against Schumer's comments was immediate and widespread. Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, interpreted Schumer's words as a clear threat, leading to calls for condemnation and even a resolution introduced by Congressman Andy Biggs to formally denounce Schumer's rhetoric (source-2). Schumer later clarified that his remarks were not intended as threats of physical harm but rather as a warning about potential political consequences for the justices (source-3). However, this clarification did not quell the criticism.
The sources of the backlash, including statements from lawmakers and the Chief Justice, are credible as they come from established political figures and institutions. The condemnation from both sides of the aisle indicates a significant concern regarding the implications of Schumer's words, highlighting the sensitivity surrounding the independence of the judiciary.
Conclusion
The claim that "Schumer's threatening remarks about justices led to public backlash" is True. The evidence shows that Schumer's comments were widely criticized by political leaders and resulted in formal resolutions to condemn his rhetoric. The backlash was not only a response to the content of his remarks but also reflected broader concerns about the tone of political discourse and its potential impact on the judiciary.
