Is Schumer Threatening Supreme Court Justices?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., went on a rant at a pro-abortion rally that was hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights and in effect seemed to be threatening two Supreme Court Justices.

Schumer was all hyped up as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a high-profile abortion case and stood at a podium yelling a warning to Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The Minority Leader cited the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, and said that this is the first “major” abortion case since President Trump’s court picks have been on the bench.

The clash in the case deals with restrictions over who can perform abortions. It involves  Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016.

This came about before either of President Trump’s justice picks was sitting on the bench.

This case that is before the court is part of a larger effort by pro life efforts by red states to pass laws regulating abortion. This would test how supportive the new justices will be of precedents already set, for instance, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which formed the basis for abortion being legal.

The law that is in question requires abortion doctors in Louisiana to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital for reasons that protect the woman in case a woman experiences complications during or after an abortion.  Restrictions on abortions because of facilities available close to a hospital would significantly reduce the number of available convenient  facilities the state.

Those who back the law dispute that it regulates abortion providers in the same manner that other medical providers are regulated by the state. It also makes certain that doctors are competent. Those who are opposed to the law say that it targets abortion providers with the ultimate goal of shutting them down.

In a 2016 case that was out of Texas the Supreme Court invalidated a very similar law.

Wednesday’s oral arguments revealed that Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Lousiana might be different from Texas in terms of the practical effect the law would have.

Kavanaugh asked “Assume all the doctors who currently perform abortions can obtain admitting privileges, could you say that the law still imposes an undue burden, even if there were no effect?”

Today Schumer shouted, “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.”

You can imagine that the video of Schumer went viral on social media.

You can see the video here:

In the heat of the moment, Schumer had accused Republican legislatures of “waging a war on women,” and he said reproductive rights are “under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history.”

Schumer went on to say, “We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues that you’re gonna be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again!”

At this time, conservatives hold a 5 to 4 majority. That, in itself, could tilt the scales against the abortion centers and with good cause.

Any ruling against abortion clinics, whether it be for medical assistance to women or for assisting a baby who survives the abortion, would be a win in my opinion. Somehow, I don’t think that pro-abortion activists care about the baby, if he or she survives, is an issue.

There are too many people who seem to think that abortion is a way of avoiding a pregnancy. All women who do not want children have other options. There are many forms of contraceptives that are easily available. Abstaining is also an alternative.

Too many women and men too, for that matter, who don’t understand that abortion is murdering a living baby. Yes, the baby is alive in the womb with a beating heart and killing him or her is MURDER!

Dead Men Tell No Tales

by Daveda Gruber:

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a man from Missouri can be executed. The highest court in the land decided that Russell Bucklew, a man who was convicted of a brutal rape and murder, can be executed by lethal injection.

In a ruling of 5 to 4, the SCOTUS decided that Bucklew is not guaranteed “painless death” even though he attempted to avoid the needle because of his rare medical condition.

Missouri now has the right to proceed with execution protocol in carrying out the sentence.

Bucklew was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Michael Sanders. Sanders was dating Bucklew’s ex-girlfriend when he was murdered.

Bucklew had assaulted the couple and stalked his ex-lover to find out the location of where she lived. Bucklew shot and killed Sanders and then fired his gun at his former girlfriend’s 6-year-old child.

He missed and kidnapped the woman and raped her several times. He was eventually arrested after a car chase and police shootout.

Justice Neil Gorsuch said, in summarizing his majority opinion, “Today we bring this case to a close at last because we agree with the courts below that Mr. Bucklew’s claim isn’t supported by either the law or the evidence.”

The court had previously ruled that inmates who challenged the method a state plans to use to execute them must have to show there’s an alternative that is likely to be less painful.

The Constitution does not guarantee a painless death. Missouri can execute Bucklew.

Bucklew had argued that death by lethal injection would be extremely painful because he had a blood-filled tumor in his throat. The tumor was caused by a rare medical condition that could most likely burst during the execution. That could cause him to choke on his own blood and cut off oxygen to his body for up to four minutes.

He called this cruel and unusual punishment that would violate the Constitution. Bucklew had stated that he wanted to die by inhaling pure nitrogen gas through a mask. This method has never been used in an execution.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are the five justices in the majority who rejected Bucklew’s argument.

The ruling said that the inmate failed to show that the alternative method “would significantly reduce his risk of pain.”

Gorsuch noted that Bucklew failed to show that the state would carry out the alternative execution.

Gorsuch wrote, “The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Bucklew was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court hours before he was scheduled to die last year. Another stay of execution was granted in 2014 in the 11th hour.

Chris Nuelle is a spokesman for the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. He said in a statement that Monday’s ruling put the state and Bucklew’s victims “one step closer to justice.”

Do you believe in the death penalty? How humane should it be? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.