If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.

If we needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments and shielded from the intimidation tactics of unethical politicians, Sen. Chuck Schumer has now provided us with one.

Speaking to pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court this week, the Senate minority leader threatened theres no other way to put it two sitting justices with repercussions if they uphold a Louisiana law aimed at protecting babies who survive abortions.

He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Its possible that Schumer who doesnt have the slightest interest in protecting abortion survivors cant think of any good reason for hospital-admitting privileges for abortion providers, as the Louisiana law requires. But treating that as an undue burden is just an example of the Democrats abortion extremism. Threatening justices over the case is hysterical.

Moreover, Schumers thuggish rhetoric is a transparent attempt to intimidate justices. And wow a sitting senator threatening an independent judiciary. Surely the champions of norms and decency will be horrified by this development. When President Trump, rather absurdly, demanded that Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from Trump-related cases because of their partisan positions and yes, Notorious RBG is openly partisan and anti-Trump it was a major national story. In this case, I suspect were going to hear a lot about a general coarsening of discourse.

Whatever the case, this is an unprecedented attack on Supreme Court justices. And by unprecedented, I mean that you wont be able to unearth an instance in modern history of a member of Congress threatening a justice by name, no less for ruling against his wishes. Which is why, I imagine, Chief Justice John Roberts felt the need to release this statement:

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

Sometimes, in highly charged debates over public policy, the moment gets the better of a person. Its happened to all of us. Yet, rather than walking back his statement, Schumer compounded the ugly behavior by smearing the chief justice as a partisan ideologue.

A spokesman said: For Justice Roberts to follow the right wings deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes. The senator meant only that there would be a political price Republicans will pay for putting them on the court, the statement added.

First of all, is Schumer really arguing that being critical of justices is tantamount to threatening them? If thats the case, why, during President Barack Obamas State of the Union address in 2010, did Schumer stand and clap for Obamas norm-breaking attack on the Supreme Court justices who had upheld the First Amendment in Citizens United? It seems clear that Obama was attempting to manipulate the court, as well, but at least he had the decency not to sound like some wannabe Mafioso.

By accusing Roberts of misrepresenting his comments for partisan reasons, Schumer (via his spokesman) is obviously trying to influence the chief justice, as well. But hes lying. Schumers initial statement specifically and unequivocally named two justices one of whom he and his colleagues had already attempted to humiliate and defame. He was not calling out the Republicans who put Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court.

Schumer doesnt have the power to follow through on any threats, thankfully. His attack, like many less obvious ones, is just part of the lefts concerted effort to delegitimize the court, denigrate its justices and undermine the legality of its decisions. This isnt surprising; the Constitution and the jurists who are inclined to uphold it are the biggest impediments to the progressive agenda. So expect a lot more of this.

Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi

Excerpt from:

Schumers SCOTUS threat was truly unprecedented, then he made it worse - New York Post