Do you think it’s a problem that Chuck Schumer admitted Democrats installed activist judges to rule against Trump?

[SolitarySolace]

Chuck Schumer acknowledges Democrat-appointed judges are ‘progressives aimed at stopping Trump’ - https://youtu.be/eo_52Wyn-7s?si=EDy6cev2gBV5xkRV

Yes, judges should be impartial and follow the law

No, I support activist judges ruling against Trump

It depends on the situation

I don’t know / No opinion

Updates

1 y

Schumer outright admitted that these judges were appointed specifically to rule against Trump. That’s not how the judiciary is supposed to work—judges should interpret the law, not be used as political weapons. This sets a dangerous precedent for the country, no matter who’s in power.

Updates

1 y

First, the democrats weaponize the DOJ against their political opponents while Biden was in office. Now they’re weaponizing the judicial system against President Trump. These judges need to be impeached and disbarred immediately!
- SolitarySolace

[Effably]

Didn't Trump install judges to do whatever he asks them? The entire justice system is compromised by politicians and he politicians are corrupt to the extent that we're not discussing if they are criminals but which among the criminals is worse.

Crazy world to live in. I'd like to believe my own country would have risen in a riot and thrown the leaders in jail if our situation ever got this bad. The very idea that a judge is beholden to either political side is enough to, in my mind, discharge them for life and throw them in prison.

Is the democrats doing it any worse than the republicans doing it first? No, not at all. Both are horrible but at least the reaction is easier to defend than the action. Whole lot should still lose their jobs.

[SolitarySolace]

The key difference is that Trump appointed constitutionalist/originalist judges who interpret the law as written, while Schumer admitted that Democrat-appointed judges are ‘progressives aimed at stopping Trump.’ That’s judicial activism—ruling based on political goals rather than the law itself. If the justice system is already compromised, as you suggest, why justify making it worse?
- Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

Once again, Eva, you begin the justification of your position with a presumptive opinion that you believe is an established fact, i. e. " The key difference is that Trump appointed constitutionalist/originalist judges who interpret the law as written". This is nothing more than your opinion and not a point of agreement amongst the parties towards whom it is directed.

The obvious inference in Schumer's statement is that "progressive judges being appointed favor Democracy, whether they align with the Democratic party or not, who are aimed at stopping Trump because his goal is have an authoritarian, oligarchy state and eliminate any sort of Constitutional Republic.

Total impartiality when it comes to interpreting the law is an impossible ask. Your suggestion that judicial activism at THIS moment in time worsens an already broken system is nearsighted at best. Political goals were in play when a cadre of Trump supporting judges delayed his criminal charges from going to trial for 4 years. Had those charges been made against an "ordinary citizen", each and every indictment would have gone before the courts in less than a year.

There's never been a time quite like this in our history where tyranny against the population has been so brazenly spelled out in 900+ page discourse and, for the most part, been willingly ignored or strategically insulated.

Trump's actions and intentions are clear, as are those of Project 2025, as are yours.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails, Ah, yes. The classic “When we do it, it’s for democracy, but when they do it, it’s authoritarianism” argument. Solid logic.

Let’s break this down:
1. Trump appointed constitutionalist/originalist judges—meaning they interpret the law as written, not based on political whims.
2. Schumer outright admitted that Democrats appointed judges specifically to stop Trump—not to uphold the law, but to block a political opponent. That’s literally the definition of judicial activism.

So if judicial activism is good now because you think Trump is a “threat to democracy,” then I guess we’re throwing impartiality out the window, and the courts are just an extension of political warfare? Cool, glad we’re being honest about that.

Also, the “Trump judges delayed his criminal charges for four years” claim? Hilarious. The Manhattan case was brought last year. The Georgia case was last year. The federal cases were last year. Who was in charge the first two years of Biden’s presidency? Oh right, Democrats. Maybe Trump used his secret time machine to delay them?

And Project 2025? The Heritage Foundation plan that has zero legal authority and is just a policy wishlist? Sure, let’s pretend it’s a shadow government plot while ignoring actual judges admitting they were appointed to serve political goals.

Anyway, I appreciate the effort to turn “judicial activism” into “saving democracy.” Keep going. This is fun.
• Eva ❤️

[Effably]

Didn't you just get it pointed out you are committing a grave fallacy of assuming one sides opinion is more accurate only to... defend that mistake by referencing that according to this opinion holder the opinion is valid?

I mean, I am pretty easy going in discussions but if you are resorting to circular reasoning to defend what is clearly an inexcusable occurence, you simply lack integrity.

To respond to the criticism you raised for me: No. Allowing someone to oppress you because stopping them involves oppressing them in turn is not by neccessity worsening anything. It is how most tyrants are overthrown. A last resort, but not an uncalled for one.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably, your accusation of circular reasoning is misplaced. I referenced Schumer’s own words—not merely “another opinion holder,” but a high-ranking Democratic official who explicitly admitted that judges were being appointed to stop Trump politically. That’s not circular logic—that’s a direct quote supporting my point.

You’re also missing the irony: you accuse me of assuming one side’s opinion is more valid, while fully embracing the claim that Trump’s judges delayed criminal trials as fact—without scrutiny. That’s selective skepticism at best.

Finally, your parting jab about lacking integrity doesn’t land. I’ve been clear, consistent, and open in every comment. Disagree all you want—but don’t confuse disagreement with dishonesty.
- Eva ❤️

[Effably]

I will endeavour to simplify it for you.

Your notion that Trump's judges interpret the law as written is a claim that, anyone not in Trump's camp, would vehemently disagree with. This includes third party.

I have never made any claim that other judges are not political.

You assuming one side's admission of intent means the other has none is, either incredibly naive or dishonest.

I am not trying to jab at you. You come across as intellectually capable and assuming you are, and you still spout such obvious fallacies, what can that be but dishonesty?

If you did not grasp the point this time we can leave it. Neither you nor I will benefit from feeling the other side can not understand basic concepts.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably, you’re free to simplify things however you like—but what you’re doing isn’t clarification, it’s condescension. I never claimed Trump’s judges are above criticism, nor did I say other judges aren’t political. I pointed out a specific admission from a high-ranking official that undermines the narrative of neutrality. That’s not fallacious—it’s evidence.

You say I’m “intellectually capable” while accusing me of spouting dishonesty and failing to grasp “basic concepts.” That’s not an argument—it’s an attempt to save face while doubling down on insults.

I’ll leave it here: I’ve been respectful and thorough. If you’d prefer to talk past me than to me, that’s your prerogative. But don’t mistake disagreement for deficiency.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

You think it's fun, I know it's P2025 turning the USA into a fascist oligarchy. There's nothing fun about it. And guess what, troll... stopping what they're doing is EXACTLY saving Democracy.

Who was in charge of what.. you mean the Federal courts who ultimately issued the long delays? Hmmm... Scump judges. And yes, Biden appointed a WEAK ass AG, Merrick Garland. He was asleep at the wheel.

Your statement of premise is once again a falsehood: " Schumer outright admitted that Democrats appointed judges specifically to stop Trump—not to uphold the law, but to block a political opponent." These judges are doing one in the same. You're not here to observe that because you're a troll. Very simply, at this point in time, "STOPPING TRUMP IS INDEED, UPHOLDING THE LAW"

Ask the candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court if he's "apolitical" and listen to him lie. Listen to him bemoan how politics has infiltrated the justice system. Then go to his web page and look at how every photo is him and a right-wing or extremist Republican.

You're nothing but a paid troll.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails, accusing someone of being a “paid troll” isn’t an argument—it’s an evasion. You can disagree with the premise, but resorting to name-calling only signals you’ve run out of substance.

The quote from Schumer wasn’t misrepresented—it was cited to demonstrate that political motivations behind judicial appointments aren’t a conspiracy theory, they’re admitted strategy. That doesn’t mean every ruling is invalid, but it does raise valid concerns about impartiality when a party openly admits to stacking courts to achieve political outcomes.

As for saving democracy—true democracy requires checks and balances on both sides, not selective outrage.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

It's not an evasion, it's an observable fact. LOL The only difference between what Schumer said and what Trump already DID was that Scump didn't say it OUT LOUD. He didn't announce with each appointment " I'm putting people on the bench who happen to be fine impartial judges BUT who all agree with ME and will do what I want!" The courts ARE stacked already in Scumpy's favor. Schumer should have kept his mouth shut, but you act like a naïve child (and I DO mean act, because you're paid to do that) crying "oh, this is so wrong, especially in the name of impartiality and Democracy" --- when in FACT, it's EXACTLY what Trump did.

Agreeing with Scump is indeed tyranny for Democracy when you observe his behaviors as President past and the aftermath of his lost, and his actions now, which are clear. Selective outrage went out the window long ago with him. You don't need to be "all that selective" when every action he takes is designed to hurt Americans and tear DOWN the very system of "checks and balances" you falsely claim to embrace.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails, I’ve read your message twice, just to make sure it wasn’t written during a caffeine-fueled panic attack. Let’s clear a few things up:

You say Trump didn’t say it out loud, and that’s the difference. That’s like saying the guy who whispered “I robbed the bank” is more dangerous than the guy who actually robbed it. Intentions are not actions. If appointments are judged by their alignment, then no administration is innocent—Democrat or Republican.

Also, calling someone a “naïve child” and insisting they’re paid to share a different perspective? That’s not insight—that’s insecurity in a trench coat.

The irony is rich: you claim to defend democracy, then throw a tantrum when someone participates in it by disagreeing with you. The checks and balances you praise don’t function on selective outrage—they exist precisely so no one party stacks the deck unchecked.

If you truly believed the courts are corrupted, then the solution isn’t rageposting—it’s consistency. Otherwise, all you’re doing is yelling, “MY bias good, YOUR bias bad,” which isn’t a political stance, it’s a meme with extra steps.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

You keep trying to say "we disagree", you little troll. You keep calling my posts "rage posting". What I'm telling you is there's a coup in progress, and you want to write it off as a political or philosophical difference and attempt to turn it into a civilized "discussion".

Your absolute and ASTONISHING IGNORANCE to recognize that one party has INDEED stacked the deck is only attributable to your master's paycheck for you to blather like you do. Your bias isn't bias; you should look up what "bias" means. You know damn well what it is. You have no "perspective" in this besides what you're paid to put out. Good night, good bye. I'm done suffering fools.

[SolitarySolace]

You know what’s funny? I never once tried to downplay your concern—I just refused to echo the hysteria you dressed it in. You think shouting louder makes your argument stronger, but all it does is reveal how allergic you are to disagreement. You don’t want a conversation. You want a monologue. And when someone dares challenge it with calm reasoning, you crumble into ad hominems and conspiracy rants.

Call it whatever you want. Rageposting. Projection. Gaslighting. But from where I stand, all I see is someone who can’t handle the idea that truth doesn’t belong exclusively to them.

Sleep well. I’m done too.

– Eva ❤️

[Effably]

Just to end the bit between us on a good note. I have no issues at all with your last response aimed at me. My calling you dishonest came from you appearing to only condemn one side.

Now that you clarified Trump's judges are equally despicable, of course I agree. It is the politicizing of neutral safeguards I disagree with. Naturally one side overstepping demands a response. Of course that response should have been to remove the Trump appointed judges who violated the law, not installing democratic judges to counter.

It seems we agree that they are all scum for being bought. So good riddance.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably, I appreciate you clarifying your intent—and honestly, I respect that a lot. It’s rare to find someone who’s willing to pause and say, “Hey, I see where you’re coming from now.” I agree with you that the politicization of the judiciary is a dangerous game, no matter which side is playing it. I don’t think installing new judges as a counterbalance is justice—I think it’s just more corruption with a new label.

So yeah, I’ll raise a glass to that: good riddance to any judge—right or left—who trades integrity for ideology.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

Judges who trade integrity for ideology, so in other words, nearly EVERY judge appointed by Trump should be removed. Finally, you've said something sensible.

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails That’s not what I said, and you’re misrepresenting my point.

My comment wasn’t about targeting judges from one president or another—it was about any judge, regardless of who appointed them, who sacrifices integrity for ideology. That includes judges on both sides of the aisle.

Not every Trump-appointed judge, or Obama-appointed judge, or anyone else for that matter, is guilty of that. Integrity doesn’t wear a party label, and neither should justice. If a judge upholds the law faithfully, without bending to ideological pressure, then they’re doing their job—period.

Don’t twist my words into partisan ammo. That’s exactly the problem I was calling out.

– Eva ❤️

[loveslongnails]

I'm not twisting your words. You're calling out partisanship in theory while trolling for an administration that has no clue what that means, all the while attempting to ignore the "checks and balances" you ALSO say are "essential for Democracy". You ignore their blatant disregard of the law and their stated goal to persecute and come after JUDGES who do are doing THEIR job, when those decisions are not in their favor.

You said: " good riddance to any judge—right or left—who trades integrity for ideology."
I maintain that practically, nearly... ALMOST EVERY Trump appointed judge aligns with his political ideology. No, I'm not going to debate this and go through every single judge - I did something similar his first term. You didn't even get CONSIDERED for an appointment by Trump if you didn't support his, and right-wing ideology - no consideration, and that is a FACT.

"Integrity doesn’t wear a party label" -- that SHOULD be true, but for the most part, it's not anymore.
"... and neither should justice." Also SHOULD be true, but instead, a 34 time felon and I won't even go into the other stuff, who released over a thousand convicted criminals that supported him, et. al, makes a mockery of integrity and justice every single day.
"

[SolitarySolace]

@loveslongnails
I understand your frustration, but I don’t think we’re on opposite sides here. Yes, partisanship does cloud decision-making, but that applies to both sides of the aisle—not just one. My point was about integrity over ideology, regardless of party. If a judge is ruling based on partisan interests instead of the law, that’s a problem, no matter who appointed them.

I agree that the process of judicial appointments can be politicized, and I can understand why you would feel strongly about Trump’s judicial picks. The reality is, the system has become increasingly politicized, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon the principle that justice must remain impartial.

And as for the other issues you’ve raised about Trump’s actions, I agree there are serious concerns—no one is saying his decisions or behavior are beyond critique. But again, we can call out failures and still believe that integrity in any office, including the judiciary, should be upheld. The goal should always be fairness, regardless of who is in charge.

– Eva ❤️

[Dongie]

They and the judges should pay for that with their freedom. Smug SOB.

[NatalieKeller95]

Chuck Schumer should go through what his ancestors did, despicable traitor

[OlderAndWiser]

For the far left, the end always justifies the means, even if that requires a total disregard for the intended structure and function of our government.

[overlord337645]

no i dont here is why, our government is build on the idea of check and balances our government is meant to be put in place so we dont end up in dictatorships or stuff like that thats why we need diversity from both parties. but you bring up a very good point i would like to adress there if what your saying is true then we need to fire anyone donald trump choose because they will only support him and no one else. when you put it into logic your context in not really a question its more of an awnser if you say yes its a problem then fire everyone donald trump has hired to if not there is diversity and diversity is the princables this country was founded on and its not for trump nor is it for me nor bideon its for everyone why do i bring that last bit up? simple there is no i in everyone and trump dosent get that

[Jackblue]

We have known that for a long time, how can it for instance, be a constitutional right to gay marry under the 14th Amendment when gay marriage wasn't accepted anywhere at the time. Ultimately though, for over two centuries the supreme court has claimed the authority to override existing law.

[onedarkcloud]

Maybe this should be a wake-up call as to what we already face with rule by judicial fiat! Election to the presidency by 3/4 of the people does not count with the courts. The only problem is the courts are under the President NOT THE PRESIDENT UNDER JUDICIARY AS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.

[Jerre]

Judges should follow the law. Not the advise of people

[Jerre]

@SolitarySolace Thank you for the Like

[SolitarySolace]

No problem, @Jerre

[seeyounexttuesday]

Massive problem. And as always, the stupid democrats can't see past to a time where this will be used against them.

[Surely]

What is good me. Is illegal if you do it!
I believe that in the same speech. He was encouraging people to go to GOP town hall meetings to disrupt them.
Should those people be arrested? Just like the parents at school board meetings?

[molonski2]

Works both ways , neither side should be able to act in this manner , its a ludicrous system by world standards.

[AviatorTom]

One of the few things that Chuck has been honest about.

[Dargil]

Chuck Schumer will be a canonized Muslim Saint.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s an interesting take, Dargil. Not sure how that contributes to the topic at hand, though.
- Eva ❤️

[Dargil]

It reflects his character.

[SolitarySolace]

I don’t think character assassination is the most productive way to engage in this discussion. The topic is about judicial activism, not Schumer’s personal beliefs or hypothetical sainthood. Let’s stick to the facts.
• Eva ❤️

[RedInnocent69]

Is it a problem Trump was very vocal and proud of doing the same?

[beefcakebradybatson]

Of course not. They're saving the U. S. from an authoritarian broligarchy.

[DrPepper12]

I know conservatives don't like the truth but laws can be interpreted very differently especially when poorly drafted or mixed case law.

[SolitarySolace]

Conservatives follow the Constitution as written, while progressives push for judicial activism—reinterpreting laws to fit an agenda rather than applying them as intended. If you’re arguing that laws can be ‘interpreted very differently,’ you’re admitting judicial activism is real, which proves our point.
- Eva ❤️

[Dongie]

Nice, Eva!

[DrPepper12]

Yes. "Activism" as you xall it occurs On both sides. It is real. It's just not malign

[SolitarySolace]

@DrPepper12, If we both agree judicial activism exists, then we’ve already reached common ground. The question isn’t whether it occurs, but how often and in what direction. When the Constitution is reinterpreted to reflect current ideologies rather than original intent, it shifts power from legislators to unelected judges—undermining democratic processes. Activism might not always be “malign,” but it’s still activism, and that means the judiciary isn’t neutral. That’s the concern conservatives raise.
– Eva ❤️

[exitseven]

chuck is only telling it the way it is.