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 was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!
Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, proudly declared, “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.” 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.”
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.
After all the completely untrue stories they post on there?
I don't even think this is worth discussing unless it gets verified on something thats not a glorified internet tabloid.
Edit: Oh and give me a break, some dude overheard all those quotes while listening in on a cell phone conversation?!? This story stinks like my sneakers after a tennis match.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush isn’t going to pick a pro choice justice. He’s pro-life to the core. That’s why Gonzo won’t get the nod.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have missed that press conference aspectre, I wasn't aware that he had declared war on the American people? Geez, you miss a few days and look what happens
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush says "there is no litmus test", does this mean he is a liar???
It means that he was advised to take the high road and state that there would be no litmus test. There will, however, be a litmus test. It may not be public, but it will happen.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know for a fact that he will choose an anti- Roe V. Wade judge, which is 100% in his right to do so, I just wish he'd shut his mouth with the "no litmus test" line because we ALL know that's a lie.
(((Although most right right wing Republicans believe he is the second coming of jesus, there fore cannot tell a lie.)))
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is noteworthy how? Every political group on the planet is going to war over the SC nomination. All the news organizations have been covering this.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being pro-life isn’t a litmus test to most conservatives. It just comes with the package. So….. I would say it could be argued that someone who isn’t pro-life isn’t conservative.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does that work the other way though? One could just as easily argue that Liberals are automatically pro Affirmative Action, Abortion, Labor, and Environment, yet if a Liberal President proclaimed any of those things as necessary attributes for a potential justices, Conservatives would be screaming "litmus test"
Just because it follows the party platform, it isn't exempted from litmus status. It's just an admittal of an litmus test, so automatic that it should just be accepted and moved past.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if a Liberal President proclaimed any of those things as necessary attributes for a potential justices, Conservatives would be screaming "litmus test"
Kerry very clearly stated during his campaign that he would only consider nominating pro-choice justices, and there was no uproar.
What can Bush do? If he nominates a strict constructionist who believes that Roe vs. Wade overstepped the boundaries of the powers alloted to the judicial branch, he'll be vilified as having used a "litmus test" whether he actually did or not.
But if he shies away from such an appointment for fear of being labeled a "cheater" for using a "litmus test", and nominates a pro-choice judge, then he'll essentially be nominating someone who he feels is an idealogical threat to the country. That would be an irresponsible move for a President to make ... letting fear of political fallout dictate decisions that shape the future of the nation.
So you tell me, which choice can Bush make? He's damned either way.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Puppy, at this point he should just do what he thinks is the right thing, and deal with the consequences.
I think that the person he nominates will make a difference too, depending on his/her views on other things.
I also imagine Rove has SOME sort of spin for this already planned, probably by accusing the Dems of using a "litmus test" of their own...and he might have a point. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
