Posted on 07/06/2005 8:57:00 AM PDT by visagoth
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JULY 06, 2005 11:09:22 ET XXXXX
SEN. SCHUMER CAUGHT ON CELLPHONE: 'WE ARE GOING TO WAR' OVER SUPREME COURT
**Exclusive**
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President’s nominee was: “It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!
Schumer proudly declared: “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”
Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: “Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again.”
Schumer later went on to mock the “Gang of 14” judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn’t relevant in the Supreme Court debate.
“A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.”
By the time the train hit New Jersey, Schumer shifted gears and called his friend and “Gang of 14” member, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
The two talked in a very friendly manner about doing an event sometime this week together.
Developing…
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2005
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
I say screw 'em.
Stare Decises.
Much to be decided this next term, so just let the Supreme Court deadlock for an entire term and then see what happens to the Democrats.
Remember when the government shut down and the Republicans got blamed? W is setting up with such a tight timeline that the Dems will be blamed for "breaking" the Court if only 8 are seated and the cases remain at the district level.
Perhaps. But I would suggest:
1) Remove them from any positions of power withing the Party, including committee chairs, etc.
2) Eliminate ALL non-critical federal spending for their respective states.
3) Remove Party support for their re-election campaigns (or at least threaten to do so).
4) Support candidates who will run against them (or at least threaten to do so).
5) Run advertisements in their states describing why this is being done.
Interesting also that Harry Reid said that Lindsay Graham would be a good nominee out of the Senate...
I am not a fan of Lindsay anymore, since the Gang of 14, compromise, but on Hannity today, he talked about Reid's "recommendation" so to speak, and he laughed and said that it speaks to how "off" the dems are...
because HE, Graham, is a pro-life, pro-man/woman marriage, fiscal conservative...
Oh please! Get Real, the President probably has no more clue than you or I right now.
Give us an example please of what makes you think this "COOLNESS" will happen?
I feel the same way. I can't remember exactly when it happened, but over the last few months I have noticed FOX News has been more than willing to follow the big 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) with over-coverage of stories that could have a negative effect on Republicans. At the same time, they leave the red-meat stupidity of the Dumocrats out to spoil and only be debated at forums like FR.
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a 52-0 football game in the second quarter and the announcers are going out of their way to give the losing team any credit they can. It's a cliche, but rule seems to be "there are two sides to every story". The problem is, quite often, one side is right and the other side is not.
There is no deal.
The Dems voted through even the "most extreme Conservatives". They can't very well vote down anybody less conservative than Janice Rogers Brown on philosophy now. They're screwed.
I abhor weak arguments.
I suppose I should respond in a more erudite manner, but I think a more accurate way of voicing that thought would be, "will Frist bend over?".
I have been thinking, we should be applying pressure to members of the senate [or at least aggravating them as much as we can], not making calls to the White House.
I was actually impressed with the rest of his interview. He left little doubt that the filabuster over ideology would not tolerated for judicial nominees and that if it were done he would support the "nukular" option.
Someone must have given her an inside track that New York would get the nod.
Otherwise, she never would have made such a rookie mistake on the national stage.
How can she get a national coalition on international consensus when she can't even get the 2012 Winter Olympics in New York?
as mabelkitty said:
'There is no deal.
The Dems voted through even the "most extreme Conservatives". They can't very well vote down anybody less conservative than Janice Rogers Brown on philosophy now. They're screwed.'
They were just shoved into a room and told to take it or leave it if they wanted to save some 'face' and proclaim they 'won'....when in fact, they just agreed to sit down.
The constitutional option was not done prior to the deal, and it's still on the table. No change.
Why is there all this talk of WAR?
Because the option is still on the table. Everybody on both sides knew the earlier stuff was just warming up for this.
There is not ONE of those Judges appointed that will make a tinker's damn bit of difference in the next 2 years!
I heartily disagree. And I imagine most people stuck in those affected courts' backlog of cases would take my side as well.
He did do well today...but he was on Hannity's show.
Let's see how he does on Hairball or CNN, before we get too excited about his answers...jeez, McCain could have called him after his interview and told him to "be careful, junior, you don't want to step too far over on one side of an issue, you won't be liked by the MSM!!!"
And the next thing you know, he will be sounding like McCain and Specter, saying that we need to have a "consensus" pick, that will be "mainstream" enough that he/she will be able to "unite the country"...blech!
I didn't say I trust him, I just said I was impressed.
Thanks for the ping!
Interesting points that he made. He stated that questions concerning current issues would not be answered, as there it precedent for non-answer - when Associate Justice Ginsburg was nominated, she failed to answer many questions posed to her, stating that she might have to decide cases that involve those issues. It's my understanding that the Dems supported her explanation at the time circa 1994.
LOL, do they take suggestions??
Usually
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.