All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:41
July 20, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On the cutting edge of societal evolution amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and secondhand cigar smoke, premium cigar smoke, I might add.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, America's anchorman and news commentator, right here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Looking forward to talking to you this hour on the phone.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
One of the cases, you know, there's a big case that was decided last week, and I sung this case's praises last week, and that was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a lower court judge saying that the military could not conduct, tribunals could not conduct their own trials of terror suspects.
John Roberts voted with the majority, unanimous three-member appeals court panel last Friday that put Bush's military tribunals in the war on terror back on track.
This clears the way for the Pentagon to resume trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
I fully expect this to be something on which he is questioned, primarily because Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
I think they're going to go after him on this.
I think they're going to tar him.
They're going to say, do you agree with torture?
Are you suggesting we just turn these detainees who have not been charged over to the military where they're going to be tortured and burnt and water roped and whatever, whatever else, waterboarded and so forth.
Just mark my words, Mr. Sterdley.
Mark my words.
They're going to go after him on this case.
They're also going to go after him on the fact he's a member of the Federalist Society.
When you are a judge and a lawyer and you're a member of the Federalist Society and you wear your Federalist Society necktie and you run into a liberal, it's like showing Dracula the cross.
They have a built-in opposition to the Federalist Society and we'll try to make hay out of that.
As a private lawyer, Judge Roberts represented Toyota at the Supreme Court winning limits on disabled workers claims.
And so Senator Kennedy was, on whose side are you?
On whose side are you?
You voted against these workers and so forth.
So that'll be something that they will bring up.
But I'll tell you, this decision on Gitmo and whether the federal judge usurped the president's commander-in-chief powers, this is a great, great decision.
I remember mentioning to you last week when the decision came down.
I read to you the three judges mentioned Robert's name and told you he was on one of the lists to be a Supreme Court nominee.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had gone fishing out of cell phone range yesterday.
She learned the name of the man nominated to replace her from a radio report.
Let's face it, that's where most people get most of their accurate information these days is radio.
Her fishing companion is the source of this.
She went fishing Thursday in the Idaho Panhandle with Robert Whaley, the U.S. District Judge in Spokane.
Her reaction to the nomination of Roberts was, he's confirmable.
Bush tried to give her advance notice on Roberts, but the two were along the St. Joe River and out-of-cell telephone range.
As a result, he said O'Connor learned of the nomination over the car radio as they returned to Spokane shortly before six.
She was in Spokane to give a speech Thursday at the annual conference of the 9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals, a gathering of lawyers and federal judges in nine western states.
And of course, Senator Leahy's out there all excited because she gave us such a gift.
She said she will serve until she is replaced.
So Senator Leahy, no doubt, will plan a delay strategery here.
Let's listen to Dick Durbin.
He was on the early show today on CBS, the anchorette and the infobabe.
Julie Chen interviewed Senator Durbin, and she said, when John Roberts came before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process for the appeals court, you voted against him.
Why?
We couldn't get answers from him.
We asked him the most basic questions.
Why did you want to overturn Roe versus Wade?
He said, well, I was just a lawyer speaking for a client.
Well, what are your views on Roe versus Wade?
Well, I'm going to stand by the Supreme Court.
Well, what do you believe?
Well, I'll just stand by the Supreme Court.
We couldn't get straight answers.
Now that answer will no longer apply.
If he wants to be on the Supreme Court, he has to be forthcoming, not to satisfy my curiosity, but to convince the American people that a man who could serve on the court for 20 to 30 years really is in the mainstream of American thinking.
Yeah, and who are you to decide that after what you said about American interrogators and military people and their behavior at Guantanamo Bay?
Reading a raw FBI email that has not been confirmed.
Who are you to decide what's in the mainstream?
Who are any of you liberals to decide what's the mainstream?
Don't you liberals get it?
You're not the mainstream, and you haven't been for years.
You're losing elections.
You're nowhere near the mainstream.
You don't get to define it.
The mainstream is determined by who wins presidential elections, not polls, and not what your aides tell you to say, and not what you think.
As to the specifics of this, all he's got to do is invoke the Ginsburg rule.
Judith or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearings back in 93 or 94, she said, I'm not going to answer these questions.
These are cases that might come before the court.
I don't know what I'm going to rule.
And the Senate Judiciary Committee did not press her.
You see, Durbin says, well, this answer is not good enough.
What do you personally believe about abortion?
Irrelevant, Senator.
A judges' personal policy preferences are not supposed to matter when it comes to doing their job from the bench.
That's the whole point, Senator.
You're not entitled to know them as a matter of whether or not you think he's fit to serve.
It's irrelevant.
I hope they keep giving us.
I hope the Democrats put Durbin out there every day.
I hope they put Schumer out there every day.
I hope they do.
They're just going to end up destroying and further damaging the case that the Democrats are trying to make because these are not the guys on which around whom the American people are going to rally.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a minute.
And back to the phones we go.
Great to have you on a show today here, folks.
Oh, by the way, the vice president will be joining us at about 2:33, right out of our bottom-of-the-hour break.
We'll be talking with Vice President Cheney about Judge Roberts.
Here's Chris in Pittsburgh.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you, sir.
Thank you very much, Rush.
Nice to be on.
Rush, I'm not quite sure what to think about Judge Roberts.
And part of that is because he's not as well known as some of the other nominees might have been to the lay person.
And not only that, but, you know, I read about Ann Coulter today, and she is rather skeptical and hesitant in endorsing Judge Roberts.
In fact, she pretty much flat out says, heck no, wrong choice.
And I wondered what your thoughts were on Ms. Coulter's perspective, as well as simply because a few Democrats and few liberals out there trying to rebuke Mr. Roberts.
Does that really mean that they're not in favor of him?
Is that a political in the first place?
Don't be fooled by this business that there are a few liberals out there trying to rebuke him.
That's just now they're digging.
They're keeping the powder dry for the hearings.
This is July.
Just mark my words.
They're going to be who they always are because that's all they can be.
They can be nothing else.
And I will guarantee you that Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy are going to seek to destroy this guy.
Make no mistake about it.
They're going to focus on this case I just read you about, read to you about the military tribunal case.
They're going to focus on a number of things.
You just mark my words.
As for Anne's piece today, I saw it.
And her basic point, as I recall, I read it this morning before the program started.
Her basic point is that she finds it unnatural that somebody who's 50 years old has never said one thing offensive to anybody in his life, that he's managed to avoid controversy, and she's suspicious of that kind of personality.
That kind of personality seeks to avoid controversy in order to remain a hidden person.
Keep your privately held views private.
Don't make yourself a target.
You have a deeply held and long-held ambition, and it's this one.
Her point is that after seeing what happened to Bork and so forth, the way you go about this is to just keep yourself as stealth as you can be, which leads to her number one complaint.
That is, we keep getting screwed by stealth candidates.
Her point is there are plenty of people out there that we know and we'd have no doubt about.
Michael Lutig is a name that comes up, and there are several others.
And she's troubled that we don't know enough about this guy.
He could turn into, she says, another David Souter.
And my problem, I understand her thinking on this.
My problem with this is that, you know, William Rehnquist never served on a bench anywhere.
I mean, he didn't have any kind of a record.
Rehnquist came right from the Department of Justice.
Rehnquist served as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counseling.
He didn't become a suitor.
He wasn't a judge anywhere, and he wasn't controversial either, and he didn't go out and make enemies, but he didn't have a portfolio of opinions and writings for people to pour through either.
And he turned out okay.
I also think that Judge Roberts is not David Souter in this sense.
Judge Roberts has worked with scores of conservative lawyers.
He was in the Reagan White House as a counsel there.
He was at the Justice Department under Ken Starr in the Solicitor General's office.
He's tried cases representing the government before the U.S. Supreme Court and other clients.
He also is a member of the Federalist Society.
And that's, believe me, the Federalist Society didn't have a bunch of skirt wearers in there in terms of phony baloney, plastic, banana, good time, rock and rollers.
So I don't think that the analogy she makes to Souter is complete.
You know, Souter was recommended by John Sununu to Bush.
I know this guy, President Bush.
You can count on this guy.
And they appointed him.
And again, nobody knew much about Souter either.
And this is her point.
The thing I'll never forget about Souter, I'm honest, folks, the first picture they ran of David Souter was of him coming out of his mother's house.
And they made the point the man wasn't married.
And he was coming out of his mother's house.
That was the picture.
And it was derisive.
It was subtly derisive.
This guy's not married.
He doesn't understand women then.
How could he be in the court if he doesn't understand women?
And he's visiting his mother?
His mother?
He's this old.
He still has to go see mommy.
I mean, the Libs tried to destroy this guy.
People forget the Libs tried to destroy David Souter as well.
They didn't succeed.
Obviously, he's on the court.
But I don't think Judge Roberts is a David Souter.
He's got too much of a, what would be called a conservative pedigree that can be traced.
Souter didn't have any of that.
But now, none of this says that Roberts cannot be asked some thorough and thoughtful questions by Republicans on the committee, too.
I mean, he can, you know, he's going to get fired at.
They're going to try to destroy him.
Make no bones about what you're hearing now.
But, ooh, we like the guy.
Ooh, he's this and that.
They're keeping the powder dry.
They're going to do what they always do.
This is it, folks.
This is what matters.
It would be sophistry to think that the Lib's going to lie down on this.
They're not.
On this nomination or the next one, or if there's a third on that, they are not going to, they'll do whatever they have to to keep Bush from getting the people he really wants on this court.
So, you know, now, if you think that it's troubling that somebody has kept themselves so close to the vest that nobody knows much about them to the point of being critical, if you distrust somebody that everybody likes, that nobody has a bad word to say about, and this is where Ann's coming from, because as she said in her piece, she gave up, you know, she was controversial when she was three weeks old.
And so it's a train of thought that a lot of people understand, but the comparison to suitor doesn't hold water with me for the reasons that I have given.
We'll see.
I mean, I'm one of those that doesn't know Judge Roberts very well, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I do.
That's why I had Julian earlier today, who does know him, spoke glowingly of him, and we'll be talking to the vice president here in about seven minutes and get his thoughts on it.
Danny in Las Vegas, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
With all the seriousness of Bush's choice and the Supreme Court, my favorite aspect of the whole thing was the surprise that the Bush White House was able to keep a secret, to keep this under their hat and surprise everybody.
What you really mean is you love the way the president screwed the media.
Yes, absolutely, because in between my calls to Congress and my letters to the editor, I was listening to the talking heads all day long, and never once was this man mentioned.
They all thought he was going to pick a woman.
They all thought he was all this, all their expertise.
And then all of a sudden, I'm listening to Fox News and they said, John Roberts.
And I just, I just love it.
Well, you know, there's two schools of thought on this that are, and again, this is the punditry school of thought.
So it's probably, you know, worth what it's costing you to listen to this.
But one thought is that the naming of Clement was a trial balloon, that they maybe really wanted Clement, but they wanted to check what reaction she got out there.
And quite honestly, the reaction that Judge Clement got was lukewarm among the president's supporters I'm talking about.
A lot of people scratching their heads.
And so when the response wasn't what the White House wanted, okay, Plan B, John Roberts.
I don't happen to think that you run a trial balloon for just one day and you've got two judges sitting there and you choose the one on the basis of how your trial balloon works.
I think that, and I don't think the White House lied to anybody about this.
I'm with you.
I think that they just did a good job of keeping a secret.
This is a White House, of course.
They're trying to nail Karl Rowe for leaking things and the media wants to put him in jail for leaking things.
And yet all day and all night last night, they are fit to be tied because nobody was leaking them, the name of this judge.
And I think that I think part of what's going on, I think there's a lot of rope-a-dope aspects in this administration.
really, really do.
I think they enjoy reveling in sitting watching these flapping gums on the mouths of journalists make no sense whatsoever.
Remember, folks, as I very, very accurately pointed out at the beginning of the program, this is the first judicial nominee to come forth in the 24-7 news cycle.
Now, I know we had CNN back when Clarence Thomas was confirmed and so forth, but all we had was CNN.
They were cable, but there was no real 24-7 news cycle.
Now there is with an alternative media as well.
And so this whole procedure here process is going to be a little different than it has been.
For instance, if the libs come out and start firing the heavy artillery too soon, they're going to destroy everybody's ability to maintain an emotional fever pitch.
That's why they're going to keep the powder dry and they're going to wait for what they think is the strategical time to launch the salvo.
But make no mistake, they will launch the salvo.
We'll be back after this.
And we welcome you back.
Great to have you here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we are always honored and happy to have with us the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome back, sir.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
How's everything going?
Couldn't be better.
Thank you.
Give us your perspective on Judge Roberts before we get into more detailed questioning.
You know him personally.
How long have you known him?
What can you tell us about him that we may not know as of this moment?
Well, I know of him.
I can't say we're personal friends or anything like that.
I've been aware of his work in the past.
And, of course, the search that the president had us do prior to making the nomination that he made last night, we looked at an awful lot of judicial talent over a long period of time.
And he stands out as one of the absolute best.
He was on the very, very short list.
And the president, after very careful consideration and a long interview and so forth, decided he wanted to go with Judge Roberts.
And I think he's a great pick.
He's had a good, solid philosophy.
He's got a distinguished career.
I mean, this is a guy whose credentials, by anybody's standards, are absolutely impeccable.
So I think he'd be a great choice.
Are you at all concerned?
As I've listened to some of the reaction, predictable reaction today from critics saying, and particularly Senator Kennedy saying, well, we need to know on whose side is he?
Is he on the side of the polluters or is he on the side of big government?
Is he on the side of big corporate interests?
It seems to me that the opponents of Judge Roberts increasingly look at the court as a political instrument to be used to their own ends.
Does it trouble you that enough or a lot of Americans seem to look at the court as the ultimate final arbiter in political matters in this country?
Well, I think it's important.
One of the things I like, frankly, about Judge Roberts is that he clearly understands the role of the courts in our society and that there's the political realm where Congress gets involved and legislating and the executive branch and the role of the courts is different.
I obviously disagree with Senator Kennedy's views with respect to Judge Roberts.
He's one of only three senators who voted against him in the Judiciary Committee when he was confirmed for his current slot on the D.C. circuit.
I didn't feel like he had a very good argument then, and I don't think he does now.
If you're looking for somebody who's got the qualities of integrity and judgment and intellect that you'd like to see in somebody who's going to sit down and address those basic fundamental issues that do come before the court from time to time, you'd be hard put to find anybody more qualified than Judge Roberts.
And the kind of comments that I've seen some on the other side make, it's almost as if they went to some focus group and tested out a bunch of lines, and now they're all using the same lines.
But it's not an informed debate, I don't believe.
What kind of questions do you all ask of all of the people that you have on your list?
Well, we're interested, obviously, in those things that tell us something about the individual in terms of their own personal life experiences, where they're from, how they look at the world, how they got to where they are.
Those you'd do sort of in any interview for virtually any position.
With respect to something like the Supreme Court, the process we went through was to obviously look at their own legal experiences.
Judge Roberts, of course, that includes presenting 39, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court, which is one of the most active appellate lawyers in the country, and that was important.
But also how he perceives the role of the court, the role of a judge in terms of the extent to which he thinks decisions need to be made to address specific issues that are presented in a particular case versus laying out broader lines of argument,
how he views the role of stereo decisis, the importance of prior decisions by the court, the relationship between the Supreme Court and appellate courts.
Of course, the appellate courts are in a position where they basically are expected to rule it consistent with decisions of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, they get to set precedents.
That's going to be one of the areas I think that he has hit on.
You know, he's had a position on the bullseye issue, Roe versus Wade, as an appellate judge.
But the appellate judge has to go by vertically as stare decesis, has to, Supreme Court, the law of the land.
But when he gets to the Supreme Court, he's free to rule as he wishes.
And you ask him on both sides of the stare decesis, both as an appellate judge and a potential Supreme Court judge?
Well, you ask him, we don't get into question him about specific cases, obviously.
And you don't want to be in, and we're not in a position of asking him questions about how specifically he might rule in a particular case or how he might think about that.
But you're interested in things such as legislative intent.
How do you determine legislative intent?
How does he, as a justice, interpret statutes?
Does he look just at the statutory language itself?
Does he look at the legislative history?
Those kinds of issues are important in terms of trying to assess whether or not a justice is a, as we laymen argue, a strict constructionist, somebody who believes the role of the court is to interpret the Constitution and apply the Constitution versus somebody who sees a much more activist role for the court, where they're in effect legislating from the bench.
Tell me about the consultation process.
I've heard the president contacted personally and spoke with over 70 members of the Senate.
How many of those were Democrats?
How did that consultation process go, and were any names run by these people?
Well, we did an extensive consultation process, Rush.
The President himself met especially with the leadership as well as with, for example, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a number of other senators.
We also set up a process where several members of the president's staff were involved, especially his counsel, in terms of seeking the advice of individual members of the Senate.
Altogether, I'd say we probably consulted with 65 or 70 senators, both parties, probably about two-thirds of the Democrats were asked for their views.
We did not get into the business of giving them a list of names.
We felt that went beyond the point of consultation.
The president's one who has to make the decisions about who he wants to nominate, and the Senate obviously has to confirm.
But we did seek their recommendations if they had names they wanted us to look at.
We talked about what kind of issues they thought ought to be considered, what the criteria ought to be in terms of filling the post.
So there was, I would say, probably more consultation, at least in my experience, than I've ever before seen on a Supreme Court nomination.
At the end of the day, and I'm not this is calling for a political opinion, but do you think at the end of the day the Democrats that were consulted will feel that they were genuinely consulted?
I know a number of them already have said as much.
Senator Byrd, for example, from West Virginia, who was very complimentary in the extent to which the president really went out of his way to talk to him, consult him, seek his advice and counsel.
So I think there are a great many Democrats who believe that there was consultation above and beyond anything they expected.
And frankly, I believe that Judge Roberts will have a large number of Democrats in the final analysis.
He'll vote for him.
He was, after all, approved unanimously for his current seat.
Just a couple more quick questions.
What steps do you plan on taking to prepare Judge Roberts for the hearings?
We've heard that Fred Thompson has been consulted for his advice on this.
What will happen there?
Well, the normal process for one of these is you get a sort of a SHERPA, a senior figure who knows the Senate well, who can sort of honcho the process for us.
And Fred Thompson's agreed to do that, of course, a distinguished former senator from Tennessee.
Well, this is currently best known for his role on law and order.
But he's a very good man, knows the Senate well, and Ed Gillespie will also help, former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
What will they do with the Senate?
What will they do with the nominee?
It's a matter of working with the nominee, getting him around to visit all the members of the, especially the Judiciary Committee, but eventually as many of the members of the Senate as possible.
Will you have mock hearings?
They may, although, again, if you look at Judge Roberts, this man has stood before the Supreme Court, those nine justices, and answered all kinds of tough questions on 39 separate occasions.
I can't think of better preparation than what he's already been through as one of the leading appellate lawyers in the nation.
So I think I know from my own experiences and the conversations that we had with him, this man will be a great witness.
Okay.
How did you keep it secret yesterday?
How did you do it?
Everybody loves the fact that you were able to do this.
How did you do it?
Well, the president liked that.
And there was a small group that had been working on the possibility of a Supreme Court replacement for a good long time.
And then when Sander Day O'Connor's retirement was announced, then, of course, we kicked into high gear.
But it's been on a very close-hold basis.
That's the way the president wanted it done.
And everybody we dealt with respected our wishes.
And it was just a little extra added pleasure in being able to pull it off.
It was an interesting night last night to watch the media demand leaks.
Mr. Vice President, next week, for a portion of next week, I'm going to be in France.
Is there anybody you'd like me to say hi to or anything you'd like me to say to anybody in France for you?
Well, I think their relationship is somewhat improved.
They've been working closely with us on a lot of the counterterrorism things that we're dealing with on a global basis.
Obviously, we've had some differences with President Chirock.
But Over the long haul, the relationship we have, for example, with French intelligence services is very good, and we need to continue to work very closely together if we're going to win the war on terror.
All right, Mr. Vice President, thank you so much.
I appreciate your time, and it's always nice to have you with us.
All right, Rush, have a good time in France.
You will.
Vice President Dick Cheney, we'll take a quick break and be back right after this.
Don't go.
So Vice President tells me to have a good time in France.
Little hidden message there.
Greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
I've got breaking news.
Breaking news.
Two Afghans released yesterday from Club Gitmo claim that about 180 other Afghans held at Club Gitmar on a hunger strike to protest alleged mistreatment and to push for their release.
U.S. spokesman at Gitmode did not immediately respond to an email request from the Associated Press for comment.
The two said that they were taken from Club Gitmo on Monday and flown back to Afghanistan before being released.
By Wednesday, the prisoners would be on their 14th or 15th day of their hunger strike.
So today would be the 15th or 16th day of the hunger strike.
I doubt that I think this story probably has it wrong.
I don't think these guys are in a hunger strike.
They're probably on diets.
You eat so well at Club Gitmo that most of the guests at Club Gitmo gain weight.
And I think, you know, if you're going to be a stealth Taliban type fighter, you've got to be slim and trim and so forth.
And I think this is simply a way for them to get back in shape.
But anyway, that's the breaking news.
Starvation and a mistreatment leading to a hunger strike among guests at Club Gitmo.
In fact, Neil Koslow, who is a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer for 12 detainees from Kuwait, said that several inmates had told him during a visit to Club Gitmo between June 20th and 24th.
June 20th and 24th?
This is the 20th.
What's this?
When was this has to be last?
You didn't have to have the dates wrong here.
June 24th is not here yet.
At any rate, so there was a widespread hunger strike over the amount and quantity.
Oh, this is July?
Oh, my gosh, this faster time flying than I thought.
That's right.
Okay.
This is July.
That's right.
NFL training camps open from now to the next 10 days, two weeks.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Several inmates had told him during a visit to Club Gitmo from June 20th, 24th last month, that there was a widespread hunger strike over the amount and quality of water they received, that the water wasn't any good.
This lawyer said that he was told that the tap water at Club Gitmo was discolored, foul-smelling, and caused gastrointestinal ailments among inmates.
I think they're just going to the diet Cokespigot and thinking that it's water.
So the detainees received three small bottles of purified water emblazoned with American flags every month, but that was inadequate in the tropical climb of Cuba.
He said the bottled water had also been taken away from detainees who break detention center rules.
So that's the latest out of Club Gitmo.
Well, it is.
It sounds like the same gastro problem that Judith Miller is having, according to her editor, Bill Keller, out there.
We'll see.
There's so many guests at Club Gitmo.
The quality service is guaranteed.
I'm sure they'll get this straightened.
I get this.
This is the Washington Post today.
Headline, new law requires workers to learn about Constitution.
Federal employees' lack of knowledge is lamented.
Does this not make my case?
Civics lessons do not get much swankier than this.
The 160-year-old federal employees who filed into the National Archives McGowan Theater yesterday for a program on the Constitution sat in plush red chairs and heard a five-piece brass band play patriotic songs.
They were given pocket-sized copies of the Constitution.
They settled in for speeches from such experts as National Archivist Alan Weinstein and Deputy White House Counselor William K. Kelly.
Then came the featured attraction, the 87-year-old Senator Sheets Byrd, who has made his living in the Senate for nearly 50 years.
He was there to sing the praises of the Constitution.
Our Constitution is not merely a dry piece of dead parchment.
It's a revered and living document that's helped inspire our nation and blah, Anyway, there's a new law.
Federal workers have to learn the Constitution if they don't know it.
Now, if they don't know it, why don't they know it?
Where have they not had it taught to them?
Is it any wonder that the Constitution gets bastardized the way it does?
Nobody knows what it says, especially people that get this is its own scandal.
I mean, they're going out there looking for people to work at the federal government who have no clue what the Constitution is.
Let's see.
Let's see.
I got to take a break here.
We'll have a phone call on the other side.
Don't go away.
I just heard from a representative of Club Gitmo.
There's no hunger strike going on down there.
It's a new class that they've offered, the euphoria of starvation.
The euphoria of starvation is a new item you can choose from when you're a guest at Club Gitmo.
And it's just being misrepresented by the people who have been released.
Scott in St. Peter's, Missouri.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush.
I really like the pick of John Roberts, and I'll tell you why.
I think it plays into your strategy, your thought about Ropa Dope.
But I like it because I think what the Bush administration, part of the strategy here is what they want to do is draw out another Supreme Court retirement.
And as opposed to submitting Janice Rogers Brown or somebody like her first and then going after John Roberts, if you put somebody like John Roberts up, I think he's, from what I can tell, he's closer to someone like Clarence Thomas than David Souter anyway.
They're going to get a good nominee with this guy.
And then if they can draw out, if they can satisfy the liberals, then they can get another retirement.
That's the time when you go to somebody else.
I address this.
I understand your thinking.
But what would ideally happen here is the left fire both barrels at this guy and then essentially be out of ammo.
But they're going to do it on all these nominees.
It really doesn't matter.
And whether or not, you know, the thing that could happen, the Libs could say, okay, at the end of the day, you can have Roberts, but nobody more conservative than this.
You know, then they'll go out to the country and start warning about all of that.
Folks, we are sadly out of busy broadcast time.
We will be back.
What is this?
Wednesday.
Okay.
Yeah, we will be back tomorrow.
And whatever's happening between now and then, we'll talk about it.
Make more sense than anybody else does.
▲
Export Selection