“NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW”
by Sharon Rondeau
Written by legal scholar Joseph DeMaio late Thursday morning and published during the noon hour in the Eastern time zone, the U.S. Senate reader’s time stamp indicates “12:45” (PM).
On Wednesday morning, Schumer attended and spoke at a “pro-choice” rally as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a Louisiana law requiring physicians performing abortions to acquire hospital-admitting privileges. Schumer’s remarks consisted of:
Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion right cases since Justices Kavanaugh and Justices Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. 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. [sic]
The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans, who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you’re going to be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far right? You’re gone in November.
We are here to send these folks a message, “Not on our watch.” So let me ask you, my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman’s right to choose? Are we going to stay quiet as they try to turn back the clock? Are we going to give up or waver when things get tough? No, we’re going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country. We’re going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and we will win.
The high court’s two most recent appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, were nominated by President Trump earlier in his first term. While Gorsuch’s nomination was met with some controversy, Kavanaugh was accused by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation, stating that he never met Ford and presenting a calendar of his whereabouts and activities, including the year Ford claimed the incident occurred.
None of Ford’s named witnesses would corroborate her alleged recollection of events.
During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh stated that he accepted Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court ruling overturning Texas laws prohibiting abortions “in most instances,” as “precedent,” although since his confirmation the political left has indicated its trepidation that Roe could be overturned.
DeMaio proposed that if Schumer failed to apologize for his incendiary comments, which elicited a strong written admonishment from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, he should be “expelled” from the Senate and criminally prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department.
Supportive of his argument, DeMaio wrote, are three federal laws criminalizing “assaults upon Justices of the Supreme Court,” “assaults…, or threatens to assault… a United States judge…,” and “punishment of anyone who, among other things, ‘impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title [i.e., Supreme Court Justices included] while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties….’”
On Thursday morning, following a condemnatory statement of Schumer’s Wednesday remarks from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Schumer took to the floor to say that McConnell made “a glaring omission” — that of failing to invoke the subject of Schumer’s “speech” the day before. “I feel so passionately about this issue, and I feel so deeply the anger of women all across America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand-in-hand to take down Roe v. Wade,” Schumer said.
Schumer claimed that a woman has a “constitutional right” to abort her baby and that the procedure is part of “the American way of life.”
“Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday; they didn’t come out the way I intended to,” Schumer said. [sic] “My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences, for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly-confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose. Of course I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public-opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”
“I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. i shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat; I never, never would do such a thing, and Leader McConnell knows that, and Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that, too,” Schumer added.
“This is open and shut,” DeMaio wrote of Schumer’s conduct. “If Schumer does not resign from the Senate by sundown today, he should be expelled. And whether or not he resigns or is expelled, because he forfeited his ‘Speech and Debate Clause’ immunity from arrest and prosecution by launching his tirade on the steps of the Supreme Court Building, Attorney General Barr should seek an indictment against him for the crimes he has committed under the federal criminal code. To be fair, though, he should be accorded a trial.”
On Wednesday evening, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he would introduce a measure in the Senate to censure Schumer for his remarks.
In closing his piece, DeMaio wrote, “This latest outrage by the leader of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate only further confirms that they have forfeited any claim of right or competence to govern a free people in a constitutional republic like ours. They must be voted out of office in November. All of them.”
DeMaio has written extensively about the Obama “eligibility” issue and the “disingenuous contrivances” committed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in claiming that anyone born in the United States, regardless of the status of his parents, is a “natural born Citizen” as required for the presidency in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the Maskell Myth, anyone born “in” the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, and regardless of the citizen, foreign or alien status of the parents, would be a “citizen by birth,” and thus, consistent with the Myth, a “natural born citizen” eligible under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution to hold the office of president. In this post, it was hypothesized that, under the Myth, if Osama bin Laden had been born in Honolulu, while his Saudi mother and father were on vacation, the Maskell logic would welcome the son into the legions of folks who are eligible to the presidency.