Matt Drudge is reporting on an intercepted cell phone conversation between Senator Charles Schumer and an unidentified individual, in which Schumer discusses the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. Drudge quotes Schumer as saying:

It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court. We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this. 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.

That makes sense, from the Democrats' standpoint. They know that President Bush won't nominate a liberal, so their best hope is that he backs away from nominating a strong, principled conservative, and instead chooses a "moderate," that is to say, someone with no clear-cut judicial philosophy at all, who could end up like a Souter or O'Connor. That's the real purpose of the Democrats' attacks. Drudge continues:

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.”

I'll say it again: President Bush is a man of principle who understands the stakes involved in this nomination. He has long said that the Justices he admires most are Scalia and Thomas. I don't believe the Democrats can scare him away from nominating a conservative, either a conventional choice like Luttig, McConnell or Roberts, or a wild card like Janice Rogers Brown.

DEACON adds: If the report is correct, I'm glad it was Senator Schumer who confirmed what we all knew to be true about the Democrats' approach. Schumer's the liberal Democrat who pretends most sickeningly to be fair-minded. The other day, for example, Schumer opined that the Court should always contain one Scalia and one Brennan. Never mind that we need hardly go back to Brennan to find the liberal counterpart of Scalia; or that Schumer would never vote for even one Scalia; or that he would support nine Brennans.

Schumer's reported claim that the gang of 14 deal isn't relevant to the Supreme Court debate is laughable. Since Schumer wasn't a party to the deal, his view of it -- specifically his view of what constitutes extraordinary circumstances that might justify a filibuster -- is irrelevant to whether the filibuster he leads will be ended through a change of the rules. As Earl Butz would say, Schumer no play-a the game, he no make-a the rules.

And by the way, Chuck, Nixon got it right on Rehnquist. May Bush do as well.

Posted by John at 01:22 PM  |    |