Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SEN. SCHUMER CAUGHT ON CELLPHONE: 'WE ARE GOING TO WAR' OVER SUPREME COURT
The Drudge Report ^ | 07/06/05 | Drudge Report

Posted on 07/06/2005 9:00:58 AM PDT by MikeA

**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…


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109thkillsamerica; 2006; 2006elections; bushglobalist; bushnominee; doasearchfirst; dupe; fristmustgo; pubswillcave; senate; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
Further proof, if we needed it, that Democrats have become knee-jerk obstructionists and pathological partisans. Wake up America! Stop giving Bush the low approval ratings! Give THESE EXTREMIST DEMOCRATS THE DISAPPROVAL LIKE YOU DID THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES OF THE 90s THAT ACTUALLY SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING UNLIKE THESE PARTISAN NITWITS IN THE DEM. PARTY WHO CARE MORE ABOUT POLITICS AND BUSH HATING AND OBSTRUCTIONISM THAN ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING FOR AMERICA!!!
1 posted on 07/06/2005 9:01:00 AM PDT by MikeA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MikeA

In the words of George W. Bush, "BRING IT ON"!!!


2 posted on 07/06/2005 9:04:17 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
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.”

Wow.......intentional manipulation of the Supreme Court. Is it called treason or politics?

3 posted on 07/06/2005 9:06:15 AM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
The bad news is that repeating what you intercept from someone else's cell call is against federal law.

Remember the deal with McDermott and the Newt call?

4 posted on 07/06/2005 9:06:42 AM PDT by capt. norm (Rap is to music what the Etch-A-Sketch is to art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
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.”

He's right on the first point, and a lousy liar on the second. For the 'Rats, this appointment is about one thing and one thing only, abortion. They're going to pull out all the stops to keep their precious "right" to slaughter unborn children. If there is any good to come of it, it will be to see what a sham this anti-filibuster "deal" really was. The first thing the 'Rats will do it throw that dead weight overboard. They're going to filibuster any nominee who won't come right out and say that they support abortion.

5 posted on 07/06/2005 9:07:10 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

If you speak so loud as to be overheard?


6 posted on 07/06/2005 9:08:12 AM PDT by MikeGranby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: mlc9852
We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

Chuckie Scummer your a Democrat. You need a Un resolution passed before you can go to war.

8 posted on 07/06/2005 9:08:28 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

According to Drudge, this was not "intercepted", it was "overheard". He was in public making this call, according to Drudge.


9 posted on 07/06/2005 9:08:54 AM PDT by AmishDude (Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

Yeah, you're right. I'm sure this is going to open up a can or worms. I wonder who intercepted the call. On the other hand, the media will ignore the content of the call to throw up dust about the illegality of the intercept. When it was Newt, they couldn't have cared less about the illegality. They just wanted to put a nefarious spin on what was said in the call.


10 posted on 07/06/2005 9:09:15 AM PDT by MikeA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Well there is the PROFF of how the DEMRATS really think about this entire nomination process? Can anyone say nuclear option?


11 posted on 07/06/2005 9:09:19 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

It makes me happy to see that Bush is waiting a short spell before naming the successor. The longer the 'Craps have to wait, the more likely they are to demonstrate their willingness to reject *anybody* Bush names.


12 posted on 07/06/2005 9:09:34 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (© 2005, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
It's not clear that is was so much an intercept as an overhearing. Ever sit next to someone using a cell phone? Depending on how much of a blowhard they are (and Schumer certainly qualifies as that), it's almost hard not to pickup up at least one side of the conversation.
13 posted on 07/06/2005 9:09:34 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
The bad news is that repeating what you intercept from someone else's cell call is against federal law.

Yes, it is. Fortunately that's not the case here. Schumer was overheard by a bystander while in a public place. If he'd wanted to keep the conversation private, he would have made the call from somewhere else.

14 posted on 07/06/2005 9:09:59 AM PDT by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
Isn't there a difference between "intercepting", and overhearing a one sided conversation?

And how is Drudge culpable anyway? What's the difference if I overhear a friends husband talking to his mistress on a cellphone and telling my friend, and this?

15 posted on 07/06/2005 9:10:24 AM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

That doesn't apply here, Norm, because apparently this person heard Schumer on the train, while he was speaking, not through a cell intercept.


16 posted on 07/06/2005 9:11:01 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

BTTT

copy to:
Chuckie
Lindsey
Rush
Sean
Hugh


17 posted on 07/06/2005 9:11:08 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

There's not even a nominee. They don't care...it's about obstruction.


18 posted on 07/06/2005 9:11:46 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chicago Conservative

This is important because no one has been nominated yet. It represents a breech of faith and a politicization of the process. We know this, but there are still naive people to convince.

In addition, Schumer's mocking of the gang of 14 and being all sweetness and light to Graham should convince at least Graham to go nuke. Remember, two defections from the gang of 14 and the Constitutional option is in play.


19 posted on 07/06/2005 9:12:28 AM PDT by AmishDude (Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MikeA; All

If Bush nominates a 1st class original constitution constructionist and puts all the "R" in lock step, it promises to be the Democrat's waterloo.

That is IF (and it is a BIG if) the republicans find their testicles and spines.


20 posted on 07/06/2005 9:12:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson