“What am I to conclude? ”

He’s a politician. Therefore: he never means anything he says. As for what he intended, being a politician, he is incapable of intent.

I believe, however, that our judiciary deserves exceedingly harsh criticism, and whining about disrespect for the judiciary is generally a cover for the idea that judges get to do what they want, and we, as a society just have to accept that. That is nonsense. And then we always have the annoying “civility” police. I believe that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg have blood on their hands for Zadvydas v, Davis, as that decision has taken away the American people’s right to remove criminal aliens from its midst when their home countries won’t accept them back. And no, I don’t believe they arrived at this result from the standpoint of neutral application of the law. Is that sort of criticism harmful? Is it uncivil? Who knows, and who cares?

Let’s just look at one of the most recent controversies–Amy Berman Jackson and Roger Stone. Her comment, from the bench no less, that Stone was “covering up for Trump” was appalling. First of all, Stone’s crimes had nothing to do with “covering up for Trump.” So basically, from the bench, Judge Berman Jackson was making a political statement to smear a non-party to the litigation. Chief Justice Roberts had no problem taking Trump to task for saying what we all know—that there are “Obama judges,” the party of the President appointing them matters. But he has nothing to say about Berman Jackson? Trump would be right to point this out.

It seemed to me Schumer was quite vehemently saying exactly what he meant to say. And now he wants me to believe he didn’t really meant it?

What am I to conclude? That the man does not know his own thoughts? Or that he lies at his convenience?

Either way, I cannot believe another word Schumer says.

Not a damn word.

Bob