“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.” ― Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

There was a time when an American could presume ― or, at least, hope ― public figures could restrain any impulse toward uttering anything untoward or illegal, keeping his opinions to himself.

And yet, here we are.

When Senator Chuck Schumer stood upon the U.S. Supreme Court steps March 4 and threatened two justices by saying they would “pay a price” if they ruled contrary to his preference on an ancillary case that could affect states’ ability to restrict abortion doctors, he wasn’t just running at the mouth.

Brent Kavanaugh, if everyone remembers, was beleaguered by Democratic senators because he was pro-life and the Democrats thought his nomination to the Supreme Court would irrevocably alter the nature of the court forever.

Schumer couldn’t have “misspoken” as he subsequently insisted when he used the past tense in saying, “[Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch] have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

But let’s not get bogged down with “feelings” and he said/he said nonsense. Let’s instead go to the law books because as every lawyer knows, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Threats are defined by federal law in 18 U.S. Code § 875. Interstate communications, reads:

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, § 63, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Regardless of what the threaten-er claims, the standard by which the accused is judged is whether a reasonable person can reasonably understand the message/utterance as a threat under the circumstances to be found guilty of making a threat.

Senate Republicans beset Schumer after he threatened the two seated Supreme Court Justices. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor and rebuked Schumer almost immediately. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MI) has said he would bring up a motion to censure Schumer.

“There is nothing to call this except a threat,” McConnell said. “At the very best, [Schumer’s] comments were astonishingly reckless and irresponsible. The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period.”

Despite Chief Justice John Roberts rebuking Schumer’s dangerous comments, the senator refused to apologize. In a statement, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) admonished him saying:

The Democratic Party is so radicalized on abortion politics that today Chuck Schumer threatened Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh if they didn’t strike down a simple, common-sense, pro-woman law that simply says that abortion doctors need to have admission privileges at a local hospital. Think about this, if a Republican threatened Justice Sotomayor or Justice Ginsburg, it would be the biggest story not just in Washington but all across America.”

Outrage to Schumer’s outlandish threat, promoted a response from the American Bar Association ― never a friend to the pro-life cause ― said they were “deeply troubled” by Schumer’s remarks.

“Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats — whether real or allegorical,” the ABA said in a statement. “Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the President, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable.”

The 2014 Louisiana law about which Schumer is currently outraged was a law that requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges to treat patients whose planned abortions might result in emergency complications. Admittedly, if the Supreme Court upholds the law, many cheapjack abortion facilities would shutter their doors as they have no interest in protecting women ― let alone babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion.

Thanks to easier access to the internet via social media which attracts more than its fair share of disenfranchised, angry, homicidal and sociopathic loners. Between 2003 and 2008, threats against federal prosecutors have risen from 116 to 250 and threats against federal judges have increased from 500 to 1278. Schumer’s threat is merely the most publicized recent permutation of this violence.

A society of laws means we shouldn’t aim toward mob rule. Democrats like Chuck Schumer, apparently, have different plans for us.