All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:25
July 20, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tell you what I think.
I think they ought to, we ought to get we ought to get Chuck Schumer out there as much as we can.
Because outside of New York, Chuck Schumer is killing the Democrats.
Get Dick Durbin out there as often as we can.
Durbin's on the Judiciary Committee.
Durbin, oh, yeah, he's a great guy to go out there and talk about what's American, right?
And the more we can get a Senator Kennedy, and that's where these people don't get it.
But I say, keep them coming.
That's exactly what we're going to do here opening this next hour of broadcast excellence.
You are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program, America's leading, most influential, most envied, and most frequently copied but never equaled radio talk show.
We're here from the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
The telephone number, if you want to join us, 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Teddy Kennedy, Kennedy, the swimmer, got himself into a talking points loop on C-SPAN, NBC, and CNN.
The theme of Senator Kennedy.
And this ought to just, I think, folks, give you a perfect illustration, if you need it anymore.
I don't know that people do, but if you need an illustration of how the liberals look at the Supreme Court, here's a montage, followed with details in a moment, Senator Kennedy.
Whose side is Judge Roberts going to be on?
Whose side is this judge going to be on?
Whose side is he going to be on the issues Judge Roberts is on whose side?
Whose side is Judge Roberts really on?
The whole concept here is flawed, but this is how they look at it.
A justice is supposed to be on somebody's side.
Other justices on somebody else's side.
And we balance this.
So we're to assume here that this man, Judge Roberts, chooses sides.
He likes some people.
He doesn't like others.
And it's going to be up to Ted Kennedy, by God, to figure out who.
Because we've got a judge who doesn't like some people here.
He might love the polluters, and he might hate the downtrodden.
He might love the military.
He might hate immigrants.
He might love white wasps.
He might hate people in wheelchairs.
That's what Senator Kennedy wants you to believe.
This is not what the Supreme Court is.
It really, I don't even know if it has become this.
I think, I guess it has, if you want to stretch it a bit.
What the Supreme Court has become to the left is simply the means by which liberalism gets institutionalized into our society.
Because my friends, liberalism cannot win and does not win at the ballot box.
This is the only hope they've got.
This is their last stand.
I'm telling you, this pick last night just cemented it.
They lost the election.
If they've been having trouble realizing that, if they've been having trouble conceding the victory, if they've been having trouble accepting a notion that they're losers, it hit them last night.
I guarantee you, it hit them last night.
They know that they may have 100 senators, and of those 100 are 45 are Democrats, but that's still each senator is but one of a body of 100.
The president of the United States is the president of the United States.
This is his gig.
And all this talk about consultation and all this talk about this and that.
The fact of the matter remains, the president of the United States, by virtue of winning elections, chooses Supreme Court and other judicial nominees.
It's just that simple.
But this whole notion of whose side is he on, we've got to have hearings to find out whose side he's on.
The implication is he's against some people.
And of course, that's the court looks at the Supreme Court's the great leveler of the playing field.
We're supposed to bestow rights here on people that don't have them, grant rights there on people who don't have them.
Whereas we all have these rights.
And they are granted by God, and they are affirmed in the U.S. Constitution.
Let's listen to Senator Kennedy in more detail.
This was on the Today Show Today.
Matt Wauer said to him, so when you voted against John Roberts in 2003, you said this.
I'm concerned about Mr. Roberts' efforts to limit reproduct rights as a government lawyer, his advocacy against affirmative action and federal environmental protection laws, and his efforts to shield the states from individual suits and to limit Congress's ability to pass legislation regulating state conduct in the name of states' rights.
Senator, have you changed your opinion in any way on Judge Roberts?
The real question I think that Americans are thinking about this morning is whose side is Judge Roberts really on on the really important issues of our times, on the issues of civil rights, because we've made such progress and the civil rights issues have been so important.
On the disability rights issue, is he going to recognize the power of the Congress to pass legislation to permit progress to be made in the areas of disability rights?
Where does he stand on workers' rights and where does he stand on the issues of reproductive rights?
Those are all an open book.
And what these hearings are about.
What Kennedy's telling Matt Lauer is, Matt, you don't work here when I'm on this show.
This is my show.
You ask me a question.
Shut up.
Don't try to interrupt me.
I'm on a roll here.
I'm talking about workers' rights, reproductive rights, all these things.
This is not what the Supreme Court was ever intended to be about.
And yet, this is what it has become in the eyes of the left, because all this stuff is supposed to happen via legislation.
And it has for the most part.
But the, well, except abortion.
And see, that's the thing.
The things that would lose legislatively, that's what the liberals want.
The liberals actually wish there were no Constitution, folks.
If you have a Constitution, you have it and you abide by it.
The whole purpose of liberal judges is to pretend it doesn't exist or to knock it out of the park or obsolete it because the Constitution does not accommodate liberalism as written.
The Constitution does not accommodate it at all.
You have to change the Constitution in order to get the liberal worldview written into it.
And that's why the court is so important.
And so what Senator Kennedy is trying to do here is convince as many Americans as possible that this judge, because he's a Republican appointee, actually dislikes some people.
He actually is an extremist and he hates you and he will choose other people over you.
He will choose for big business.
I have a question for you, Senator Kennedy.
When you finally get these hearings rolling, ask him how he would decide on a Karl Rove case.
Ask him about things like that.
That would be about as ridiculous as the other questions are going to be.
Here, another bite.
Kennedy has nothing better than, is he going to be on the side of the polluters?
Matt Wauer came back and said, well, Senator, let's say he disagrees with you ideologically.
It's safe to say he probably does.
If he's qualified, though, why should you vote against him when liberal presidents in the past have nominated liberal candidates?
Republicans went along and said, well, we disagree ideologically and philosophically, but they're qualified.
They won the election, so we'll vote yes.
Why should Democrats vote no on Judge Roberts?
The American people during this process want to know, is he going to be on the side of the major corporate interests or is he going to be on the consumers' interest?
Will he be on the side of the polluters or will he be on the side of those that believe that the Congress had the right to pass important legislation on the environment?
And will he be on the side of workers or is he going to be on the side of the bosses?
That is the issues, and that is basically what they call the Commerce Clause issues.
And those are issues that I think the American people expect those of us on the Judiciary Committee to inquire of this nominee.
Okay, so it's an open question.
We don't know yet whether this judge favors pollution.
We don't know whether this judge favors workers getting stepped on.
We don't know yet whether This judge wants dirty air and dirty water and says to hell with keeping a clean environment.
And that's what the American people want to know.
They want to know who he's going to be on the side of.
We have another bite here, ladies and gentlemen, over at CNN, Miles O'Brien talking to Senator Kennedy.
Judge Roberts is coming in with so little of a paper trail.
Does that make it more important for him to ask very specific and direct questions?
And what are the questions and direct questions you need precise answers to in order to vote for him?
The basic overall concept is his view of the Constitution and the constitutional rights and constitutional liberties and his basic concept about fairness in this whole process.
But as I mentioned, each and every one of these areas on civil rights, workers' rights, environmental rights, women's rights, we have made enormous progress over the period of these last 40 years.
Are we going to have a judge that's going to sustain that progress or try to reverse it?
There's no reversing this stuff.
This is pure, pure sophistry.
You know, July is a big month for Senator Kennedy.
I guess one of the reasons is out there.
July 18th, 1969, Senator's Oldsmobile, programmed by Carl Rove, took a wrong turn, drove off a bridge there at Chappaquittick.
And Senator Kennedy made a beeline for a neck brace.
And after it took him a while to find a neck brace, when he found the neck brace, he then called a press conference that he did everything to save Mary Joe, but that Carl Rove had rigged the doors and he couldn't open them.
They were on auto-lock even back then in a 1969 Oldsmobile.
And as such, this is two days after the annual anniversary of July 18th.
We might ask Senator Kennedy, how would you have decided in the Chappaquittick court hearings?
On whose side, Senator, would you have been on?
Would you have been on the side of Big Justice that was willing to give you a pass?
Or would you have been on the side of Mary Joe or on the side of the guy who left the accident in search of a neck brace?
We'll never know the answer.
Well, we do know the answer.
We know what side he would be on there.
We know what side he chose.
Quick timeout back after this.
Greetings, my friends.
I want to go back here and listen to a Senator Kennedy bite.
This is really serious.
It's interesting.
It's, well, I want to say serious.
It's fascinating.
And I could play a couple of these bites, but this one will sum it up.
This is his appearance on CNN today, and the question being, Judge Roberts coming in with so little of a paper trail, does it make it more important for him to ask very specific and direct questions?
And what are those questions that you need precise answers to, Senator Kennedy?
The basic overall concept is his view of the Constitution and the constitutional rights and constitutional liberties and his basic concept about fairness in this whole process.
But as I mentioned, each and every one of these areas on civil rights, workers' rights, environmental rights, women's rights, we have made enormous progress over the period of these last 40 years.
Are we going to have a judge that's going to sustain that progress or try to reverse it?
Now, here's the point about this, in all seriousness.
Senator Kennedy here has just attacked the concept of judicial review.
He is saying here that he doesn't think the Supreme Court should mess with the laws Congress passes.
And the two previous bites that we played in the first segment of this hour, he makes the point as well.
He's worried about Judge Roberts because he's got to ask him some questions.
This man might change laws that Congress passed.
Well, judicial review is essentially the result of Marbury versus Madison in 1803.
And that is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court just determined for itself that it was going to decide the constitutionality of law passed by Congress.
That was not part of the original intent of the founders, and it was not set up in the official structuring of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court just usurped this power in Marbury versus Madison in 1803, and that is called judicial review.
Supreme Court reviewing the constitutionality of law.
So here comes Senator Kennedy, which now demanding that the court uphold laws passed by representative bodies.
I don't know if he knows how little sense he's making here, but what he's illustrating is that the court is a selective institution, and it is to be used for one purpose, and that is to advance liberalism and to institutionalize it.
Because if you have a liberal court, judicial review is fine.
We'll make sure the liberals find laws that don't exist, overturn congressional laws that hurt liberalism and blah, blah.
But now he thinks there's a bunch of laws out there that have been passed in advance liberalism under the workers' rights banner, the civil rights banner, the women's rights banner, and all that.
And so now he's worried that this judge might come in and overturn or overvote to overrule those decisions.
But Senator Kennedy, you can't have it both ways.
You are either against judicial review or for it.
You can't say you're for judicial review when you guys own the court, but you're against it when you don't.
But that's exactly what he's saying.
Now, of course, he does not support judicial review in Massachusetts.
Kennedy supports the Supreme Court writing the Constitution in Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court in Massachusetts told the legislature, you've got to write a law that imposes same-sex marriage on the people, whether they vote for it or not.
And Senator Kennedy was all for that, but now he doesn't want this guy to be able to do the same thing from the U.S. Supreme Court.
By saying he opposes or questions the court overruling congressional decisions, is he not saying that he rejects judicial review?
Judicial review, as I say, the power that the Supreme Court seized back in 1803, Marbury versus Madison, in order to rule on the constitutionality of congressional laws.
It's the power the Supreme Court's used since then to become the most powerful of the three branches.
And it's what's made it political.
It simply decides whether that law's good, not good, or whatever, based on these nine people that wear the black robes.
And that's where their personal policy preferences come into play.
And that's where now they're starting to look at international law for source when they can't find it here in the United States case book.
And so judicial review, yeah, we're all for judicial review when we run the place.
Well, we got to have a majority conservatives in this.
No, judicial review.
Supreme Court cannot overturn any previous law.
They cannot do it.
No, no, no.
And this is Senator Kennedy.
And this is the depravity of their intellectual position.
And this is illustrative, folks, of how there's no really principled decision here, not one involving the law, not one involving the Constitution.
This is all about how this court and what it might do with this judge is going to affect them and their personal policy preferences, because it is this court that has managed to infuse as much liberalism into this society as has been, because it otherwise would not win at the ballot box.
A wise reporter, somebody who's up on this, needs to ask Senator Kennedy if he's now opposed to judicial review, which, of course, liberals support this forever because that's the ultimate power.
But it sounds like he's now opposed to it because he's worried about what Judge Roberts might overturn or overrule or vote to overturn or whatever.
Now, I don't know if such a reporter exists out there.
Frankly, I don't know how many of them are even concerned about judicial review.
I think I really don't.
But he's being as contradictory here as it is possible for someone to be when it comes to the role of the court and his so-called support for whatever the role of the court is.
But he's, again, he's simply demonstrating for all of us that this court is just the liberals' personal playground.
And when they lose control of it, then that court ceases having the power that it has when they run it.
This court will be powerless when judicial review is the matter.
If the liberals don't run it, that's essentially what he's saying.
He needs to be called on it and asked about it.
I'd do it, folks, but I don't think he'd take my call.
We'll be back after this.
Do you stay with us?
A man, a legend, a way of life.
We're back.
Before I go back to the phone calls, let me attack on one more basis, in one more way.
This whole notion of Senator Kennedy asking on whose side will Judge Roberts be?
Will it be on the side of the polluters?
Will it be on the side of the big corporate interests?
Will it be on the side of the little guy?
Well, let's look at the last Supreme Court decision involving the little guys, shall we?
It's called Kilo.
New London, Connecticut.
Remember this case?
This is a case where the court, five to four, the liberals made up the five, decided that the city of New London, Connecticut could choose between existing property owners and somebody who wanted that property.
And they could choose that the somebody who wanted the property, big corporate interests, could get the property currently owned by people who occupied the property, the little guys.
And the little guy is going to have their property taken from them, given to the big corporate interests for the purposes of generating more tax revenue to New London, Connecticut.
Who was it that was for screwing the little guy?
It was Senator Kennedy, the liberal appointees on this court.
So if you're going to start asking questions about who in the world is this guy going to choose sides with, we need to start asking that question now to point out just how absurd and outrageous and obscene the whole concept can be because of this ruling that we got from the court.
And don't try to tell me, Senator, that's a liberal that chooses for the little guy, because what this case illustrates is that the liberals choose for government, be it big government, be it state government.
If the groundhogs had a government, they'd choose it over the little guy.
It's government the liberals invest in.
It's government that gives liberals their power.
It's government that they will always choose.
And a little guy can simply go get screwed, as happened in New London, Connecticut.
And yet he has the audacity to ask on whose side Judge Roberts will be.
Speaking of which, alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's Supreme Court decision, Kilo versus New London.
In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development.
Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota, and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land.
Even in states like Illinois, one of at least eight that already forbid eminent domain for economic development, unless the purpose is to eliminate blight.
Lawmakers are proposing to make it even tougher to use the procedure.
The Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Connecticut case, said that at least 25 states are considering changes to eminent domain laws.
I mention this because I was asked last week if there's going to be a backlash to this.
And yes, you see it.
It's happening as we speak.
I had a story in yesterday's stack.
I didn't get to it because, of course, the Rove story was still percolating out there.
We had the name of Edith Brown Clement circulating as a possible Supreme Court nominee.
But there's another hotel case out in San Francisco.
There's a great old hotel out there called the Fairmont.
I have stayed in this hotel.
Yes, I stayed in that.
When did I stay in this?
I stayed in that hotel when I lived in Sacramento.
I went out there for the Democratic Convention in 84 and only got to drive by it.
I got stuck in some hotel in some godforsaken place because we were the last to decide to go and there was no space.
I might have been staying in a San Remo for all I remember.
At any rate, the owners, just some investors that own the Fairmont, have decided they want to turn one wing of the three wings of the hotel into condos.
And the city say, you can't do that.
And the labor unions are organized.
You can't do that.
And the investors, well, it's our property.
What do you mean we can't do it?
It's our property.
Nobody's going to lose any jobs here.
We want to replace some 100 rooms with 60 apartments.
The old-fashioned, the old stained element of the Fairmont's going to stay where it is, untouched.
It's going to be a hotel.
And the city, just as they said in the San Remo case and the Supreme Court found for the city against the Santa Remo hotel, the city is saying, we don't care about your hotel.
We got housing laws here.
And you just can't start dumping housing on the market like this.
So it's even happening in Upper Cruft.
The Fairmont, have you ever watched that?
ABC had a series back in the 80s called Hotel, I think it was.
I think James Brolin was in it.
Did you ever watch that show?
Well, whoever was in it, I think it was James Brolin, but he ran it, but it was the Fairmont that they used for the exterior shots.
It's a great one.
In fact, when I went out to the Democratic Convention in 84, the hotel was owned by a family, and I can't remember the name of the family, Big Libs, Big Dems.
And that was the official Democrat headquarter hotel where Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House and the figurehead, the father figure of the convention, was staying.
And he was given the presidential suite that week at the Fairmont.
And then he'd go to the convention and he would get on the podium and start talking about the Republican convention where everybody would be showing up in mink coats in limousines.
Yep, mink coats in July and August.
Remember that?
Republicans will be showing up in mink coats and limousines.
Here's Chip staying in the finest suite known to exist at the Fairmont Hotel, Gratus.
Democrats were not poor people.
I went to a couple of receptions back then.
You know, this four lives knew who I was.
I was just starting out radio after I gave up baseball, getting back into radio.
And it was fun.
And I loved San Francisco.
I absolutely loved it.
Still think it's one of the most beautiful places that there is to go.
Here's Sandy in Costa Mesa, California.
Nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Mega Ditto's Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
Sir, indulge me for a minute.
We heard nothing but the last two months.
These idiots say, advise and consent, the president needs to consult with us on these nominations.
So what does he do?
Over 70 senators, President Bush consults over and above what most presidents have ever done, and their word means diddly.
They're still throwing a wrench no matter what this man does.
He's the president.
He's been elected.
If they say we, the American people, on behalf, I'm going to scream because these guys have 20 amendments pending on the floor.
They need to shut up and get back to work and quit throwing a wrench in everything the military does.
This man takes his office seriously.
These guys are a joke.
And we, as the American people, are tired of this crap.
I am so glad you're mad.
And I hope you represent the vast majority of the American people, as I know you do, because you're exactly right.
These guys, he did call personally over 70% of the Senate.
Yes, he did.
And they're like a bunch of tackling hands that are speaking nothing but a bunch of bull.
They don't have a plan.
They don't have anything but nothing but just to fight.
And it's getting nowhere.
And you know what?
I'm a taxpayer, and none of my bills are getting passed because they're BSing around, wasting Rumsfeld's time so we can watch him get insulted by that Ku Klux Klan idiot.
And I mean, you know, after a while, Rush, you just get sick and tired.
I mean, Leahy is a joke.
Well, what the hell took you so long?
I've been mad about this for 20 years.
Well, I've been holding for a while.
And you know what?
Let's see Sandy Berger get some justice.
That's the one that makes me angry.
They just look away from that one.
And you know what, Karl Rove, they're as scared as him as they are of you.
And that's a compliment.
And that's right there.
They're so afraid of you.
It's pathetic, and they're afraid of Karl Rove.
And, you know, shut up and go to work and do what you were elected to do and let the president do his job.
Damn it.
We're sick of this crap.
All they do is waste people's time and they do nothing but just put their rhetoric in there.
And you know what?
It's about time.
Don't tell me on behalf of the American people get up and go to work.
That's the way it is.
And quit putting a wrench into everything.
Well, I love your passion.
No, that's not all.
I know you still have some more in there.
Well, they don't have, they have total disregard for the president and the office that this holds.
And they act like as if they're the president.
They act like he doesn't exist.
I've never seen such a total disregard for the office and the president.
We elected this man.
You know why that is.
These people are in their last legs.
Some of this, I understand your anger, and I think I'm.
It's a waste of time.
C-SPAN better get something else on because, you know, when I see 20 amendments still on the floor that they hope to get done, it's like, you know, and Kennedy, get out of here.
Don't talk about the American people to me.
He can just go, you know what?
He's worthless.
He needs to get a haircut.
But don't don't you don't.
But I think this is obvious to a lot of people.
I think that's the great thing here.
And I think a lot of people share your emotion.
They share your passion.
I think far more many Americans agree with you on all of this than you would probably.
Well, to sit there and say they're going to sit under an apple tree, we're going to think we're idiots.
This isn't what he's elected.
If they elect Leahy next year or whatever he's up for, they're nuts because anybody that's going to sit there and absolutely say, I'm going to sit under an apple tree just to stall time, that is totally fooling anybody anymore with this.
But you know what?
We don't have to hear this.
This isn't what an elected official does.
They're supposed to sit there and do the job of the American people not talk on behalf of us when we're talking about...
I think you do need to hear it so that you get mad like this.
But you've got to learn to laugh at this stuff, too, Sandy, or you're going to go nuts.
I know, but the president did cooperate, and he did do that.
Now, government.
No, he didn't.
Let's be honest here.
They demanded consultation and they got consultation, but they said the process doesn't end there.
Schumer wanted to be invited up for dinner.
Schooner wanted a big summit up at Camp David.
Ted Kennedy wanted to go to happy hour with Bush.
None of that happened.
None of it happened, Sandy.
They didn't get the consultation.
Kennedy carries his own flash.
They wanted to be able to pick the names.
Kennedy carries his own flask.
He doesn't have to be invited.
You know, I mean, he's got nothing to say.
I mean, I'm just so tired of this games.
I mean, this is serious business, and to watch the military sit there with all the heads of all of the military sit there and be put up like they're up at the grand jury and listening to this, let them alone to do their job.
We have a war going on, for God's sakes.
You know, quit wasting the people's time and their money.
We have two wars.
We have two wars going on, Sandy.
The president is battling al-Qaeda terrorists around the world, and he's battling the American left.
They're a joke, Rush.
They're an absolute joke.
Well, I agree with you.
That's why I like laughing at them.
Look, Sandy, I'm glad you called.
Like I said, they're as scared of you as they are of Karl Roe, and that's a compliment.
And you know what?
You keep on going, but I'd like to see Sandy Berger get his day in court because to me, what he did was unbelievable, and they look the other way.
Let's hear about Kennedy say that, or was he drunk that day, too?
You know, that's bull.
That is taking confidential paperwork and disposing of it to hide.
They want to talk about illegal than looking the other way.
This is not what the American people want.
And I'm tired of their games, and they waste my time, and they insult my intelligence.
And this is not a politician.
This is a capway in.
I was going to say, is that it?
But I don't think it is.
You got any more in there?
I don't know.
Durbin just talked, and I turned the TV off.
It says about 20 amendments, or pending on more may be offered.
Get on with it.
Shut up and get this job done.
We want our bills passed.
Well, depending on what they are.
Well, whatever.
Do something.
I mean, just let us see them do something other than just throwing a wrench at everything this president does.
He takes his job seriously, and we know that.
He doesn't make hasty decisions.
All right.
I have to run, Sandy.
I'm a little bit long here in this thing, but I appreciate your call.
I love you.
Thank you so much.
Take care.
We'll be back here in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
Judge Roberts has made his way to Capitol Hill.
He's meeting with the Republican Senate leadership, Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, and Mitch McConnell as we speak.
As I gaze around, the view of the camera is panning.
I see no Democrats in the room, but he will be meeting with them.
He'll be meeting with them one-on-one.
Well, I know Specter's there, but he's not a Democrat by virtue of party affiliation.
I just want to see Judge Roberts trek up to Leahy's farm up there in Vermont, maybe meet with him under the apple tree.
If there's any justice in the world, folks, while Wehey's up there reading about Judge Roberts under the apple tree, a rotten apple will fall on Leahy, and he will discover gravity.
This of his situation.
Here is Mike in St. Charles, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Rush.
Yes.
Rush, great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, I'd like to comment on Bush's selection of John G. Roberts as a Supreme Court nominee.
Well, right ahead.
I think he made an outstanding choice, and I think it shows character on his part, considering that even his own wife made a plea to him to put a woman in there.
The fact that he chose to overlook that.
That's an excellent point.
I had not forgotten that.
Keynes chose to do the right thing based on principle by putting the right person in there, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity.
Let me ask, hang on, just a second here.
Just a second.
Dawn, do you think Bush had to sleep on the couch last night?
I had forgotten that, Mike.
That's right.
His wife, Laura, did say she hoped to pick a woman.
Let me ask you a quick question here.
Go ahead.
On what basis are you convinced that Judge Roberts is the best conservative judge out there or one of the best that could have been found and nominated?
Well, I think considerable, well, based on what I read in the paper, the fact that he holds conservative views, that he makes decisions based on principle, that he's a strict constructionalist.
He tries to interpret the Constitution as it's written.
He doesn't have anything.
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
Does it bother you at all?
And I'm not saying it's, I'm not trying to put thoughts in your mind.
I'm not trying to lead you.
So I'm just, because you're the first call we've had today that I know there are a lot of them.
You're just the first I've taken that is very supportive.
Does it concern you at all that a lot of Democrats and liberals, like Lawrence Tribe and others, are saying pretty glowing things about this guy?
Well, it's got to mean I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
Are you answering that?
I'll tell you what I think.
I'll answer the question.
I'll tell you what I think it means.
And I ran this by some people this morning and they discounted it.
So I know it's even more true.
One of the things I read is that Judge Roberts is very active in the Washington social scene.
He is not a hermit.
He doesn't live apart from the natives.
Now, he considers Indiana to be his home.
He was born in Buffalo, which is going to be, you know, it's going to make it a tough choice for Tim Russert because Russert's in Buffalo.
But what might help Russert is a guy left Buffalo, went to Indiana.
But he considers Indiana he's a red state guy.
He's a heartland guy.
He moves to Washington when he gets this appointment, and he is who he is, but he knows a lot of people, and he and his wife are very active socially.
I don't mean they're social butterflies, but he's not a hermit.
And I've always told you that this town is a, you know, it's a culture run by the left, and it's the media culture, the social culture, the whole establishment there is very, very liberal, unlike the vast majority of America.
This guy's found his way into it.
And I mean, I've always told you, one of the reasons that certain liberals always say certain things liberal, even though they may sound stupid, is they'll be invited to the cocktail parties and they'll still be heroes on the cocktail party circuit, which matters to the left.
The social circuit matters.
The social circuit is where you establish the click, who's in and who's out, who gets invited, who doesn't.
And this guy's in it.
And I think they like him.
I think they like him.
And I don't think he runs around and talks about conservative things in front of them.
And so since they like him personally and have said it's going to be very hard for them now to run around and talk about what a reprobate and extremist and so forth that he is.
We'll be back after this.
It's the fastest week in media, folks, and the fastest three hours in media.
And by evidence of that is we're already down two hours.
Only have one more to go.
And as always, we'll make the most of it.
It'll get started in mere moments.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection