All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
July 25, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I think everybody's wrong about something.
And as long as I have this forum today, I'm going to tell you what I think I'm right about and everybody else is wrong about.
I think everybody's wrong about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
The common assumption now is that Bush has managed to pick a nominee that the Democrats can't lay a glove on and that he's going to sail through the United States Senate.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think that there's going to be a lot of trouble here.
I think that the Democrats are going to try to turn John Roberts into John Bolton.
Now follow me out on this.
This is how I see it happening.
First of all, their criticisms of Roberts to this point are almost non-existent because they can't find anything on him.
They've combed through his opinions, they can't find much there.
They've looked into his background, they can't find anything there, so they're muttering things, well, I guess he's qualified, but we have these concerns.
Well, we have this.
Do not assume that that means that they're just going to raise the white flag.
They aren't going to do that because the only power they have right now is to try to obstruct the president's nominees.
The reason why John Bolton is a big deal, the reason why they go after Carl Rove is they don't have the ability to pass any legislation, they don't have any governing authority in this country.
All they can do is target Bush's aides and the people that he wants to appoint to positions of high office.
Do you think for a minute that the Democrats and the Senate Judiciary Committee are just going to give Roberts a pass?
They've been waiting for five years to be able to rough up a Bush nominee for the Supreme Court, and I think they're going to do it, and they're going to do it in this instance.
In the end, they're not going to win, and Roberts is going to be confirmed, unless they find some scandal that no one knows about yet.
I believe Roberts will be confirmed.
There are 55 Republican votes in the U.S. Senate, 56, if you include Vice President Cheney, who would vote in the event of a tie.
So he's going to be confirmed, but before that happens, you're going to see John Roberts go through the same meat grinder that everybody else that Bush tries to nominate for positions of high office has to go through.
And I think you saw it start over the weekend.
On the weekend talk shows, Democrats were trotted out, led by Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who's uh the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and he's now muttering about, well, we need to see these records and we need to see these memos and we need to see this and we need to see that.
Judge Roberts served in two different presidential administrations.
He served in the Reagan administration and he was the deputy solicitor general in the first President Bush administration.
They're going to want every note, they're going to want every memo, they're going to want everything that he ever turned out.
And they're not going to get it.
The reason they're not going to get it is you can't turn things like that over.
First of all, we do have separation of powers in this country.
The legislative branch doesn't have a right to see everything that the executive branch has.
But secondly, can you imagine if every single correspondence communication internal memo, opinion, strategy note, brainstorming idea that came out of a presidential administration had to be surrendered to a congressional committee, particularly now if we're talking about legal communications.
Anyone who works in any of those offices would be so gun shy of committing anything to writing that they wouldn't be able to serve their president.
The whole nature of an office like this is that you give advice, you lay out pros and cons, you argue an opinion, and in the end a decision is made.
You can't have attorneys.
Imagine all of you who've ever had a deal with an attorney in your life.
The stuff that you've gone back and forth with, particularly the stuff that's been rejected.
The fact that you may have gone back and forth and suggested this or your lawyer suggested that doesn't mean that you were ever going to do it.
It doesn't really mean much of anything.
They're looking for some, they're looking for all of this material, not because they think that it will reveal information about Judge Roberts, and not because they think it will tell us whether or not he's fit to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
Of course he's fit to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
He's a brilliant lawyer.
He's been an outstanding federal appeals judge.
He served his country admirably for decades.
What they're looking for is something, anything, that they can use to embarrass him.
If Judge Roberts wrote one memo or had a draft of an idea that he submitted to someone that in any way seems goofy or wrong, or takes a position that might be deemed to be extreme, they want that then to become the only issue upon which his nomination for the Supreme Court is going to be based.
If he wrote a memo suggesting anything that might now not be considered politically acceptable, they want to use that as a referendum on whatever it was that he wrote, and that's why they want to go on this giant fishing expedition.
Well, of course, they're not going to get this stuff.
President Bush isn't going to, you know, agree to turn over every Roberts memo.
The entire Solicitor General correspondence from the first Bush administration isn't going to be given to these guys.
It isn't going to happen.
Because it's impractical to turn that kind of material over.
So after they don't get what they know they're not going to get anyway, they'll make us think and they'll say, hey, here we go.
What do they have to hide?
What's in Roberts' background?
Why don't we have this?
Why don't we have that?
We're being asked to confirm someone for the highest position that our government has in the judiciary, the Supreme Court of the United States, without saying this material.
And they'll try to delay and they'll try to obstruct.
They may even threaten the filibusters.
So I think all of this is coming.
I think all of this is coming.
And I think you're going to see them try to hold him up in the same way they try to hold hold up Bolton, in which they've asked for this record and this note and this file, and they want to have all of this material, knowing they're never going to get it, and then they use the denial of the material as the reason to obstruct.
So I think all of that is going to come, and we're going to be facing all of this, and the Roberts nomination is going to be one that's going to be very, very contentious and very controversial.
Also, the Democrats don't want to roll over on this.
They don't want to roll over on any judicial nomination because after Roberts, there's likely to be another one.
They want to send a message to Bush that we're going to make you pay on Roberts, so the next nominee better be less conservative than Roberts is.
If they roll over and say Roberts is acceptable, they're sending the tacit message that any judge who has the philosophy and ideology that Roberts does is acceptable to them.
And I don't think they want to do that.
In the end, Roberts will be confirmed because the Republicans have a majority in the United States Senate.
But do not be surprised if the filibuster threat is raised or if they even engage in the filibuster, breaking the deal they cut a few weeks ago and forcing the Senate to decide whether or not they're going to implement the nuclear option.
Most people don't see it this way.
They see Roberts as sailing through to confirmation, but I will be shocked if that happens.
I will be shocked if the Democrats don't use this demand for records and notes and disclosure of this, that, and the other thing, as an excuse to try to mess up the timeline and give all sorts of hassles and headaches to the administration with regard to Judge Roberts to Chicago and James.
James, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Yeah, yes.
Good afternoon.
I see Russia's on vacation again.
That that's kind of nice.
Here's here's the deal.
Well, it's nice for me.
I get to do the show.
Well, well, there you go.
Whether one's a uh Republican or a Democrat, this uh the individual of Bush nominated, Judge Roberts, has only been a judge for what, two years, correct?
Yes.
So what are not only U.S. well, I guess U.S. Senators at this point, but what are those individuals supposed to base the qualifications of this individual to assume his seat on the nation's highest court?
Well, how about looking at his entire life?
He's been on the court of appeals for two years.
He has been a lawyer in private practice for several years prior to that.
Well, let me you ask ask the question what he he should be judged on I'm answering.
It's going to be a long answer because the qualifications are long.
He argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
He was a hang on.
I'm answering your question.
He was a go-to guy when it comes to constitutional law.
He was considered the person to go to.
If you had a case to argue before the United States Supreme Court.
Before that, he served as the Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.
That's the office that defends the country in legal action.
Prior to that, he served in the Reagan administration.
When he was in college, he went to Harvard.
He was the editor of the law review.
What you see throughout the man's life are qualifications.
So you ask what do they use to determine whether or not he's qualified?
How about his entire life?
Well, right, but those private cases, that's protected by attorney client privilege.
You got to get into how this man thinks and w um w what are his writings?
What are his positions?
What were those some of those cases that he that his law firm chose to represent before?
Well, those are all public records.
We know that we know every case that his firm represented.
Well, they're all and if he argued it before the Supreme Court, that's obviously you as an individual.
Are you aware of any of the cases or generally speaking, yes.
Can you name one or you just blindly supporting this guy because he's a Republican?
Are you asking me to name all of the cases that Judge Roberts had or just one of them?
The number, yeah.
Can you name one or no?
Why are you asking?
Well, because it seems you're supporting this guy and and you really you really aren't aware of any of his positions or or other than you know, he went to Harvard, which I thought, you know, that's part of the what?
The liberal as you as you your elk like determine, that's some big liberal uh bastion of of Ted Kennedy boss and liberalism, but now you're touting it as oh, he went to Harvard Law School.
Well, your your ilk would normally consider it to be something for which the he should be given a pass.
Well, I think I actually, if you've been listening to me closely, I actually have not carried the water for Judge Roberts yet, nor have I said that I think he'll be a great justice.
I'm merely telling you what I think that the Democrats are going to do and what it is that they're going to look for.
I actually agree with you more than you think.
I do think that when he goes up for the confirmation hearings, he ought to answer questions about his philosophy.
If they ask him what your position on abortion is, I think he ought to answer it.
I think he ought to come clean on those things.
I do disagree, however, that documents that were prepared during the time that he was in the Solicitor General's office and was a counsel to the president of the United States.
I don't think those should be fair game.
However, I don't think that Roberts should be able to walk through those confirmation hearings without saying what his opinions on things are.
I think that he ought to share those opinions, and I think he ought to tell us generally, without getting into specifics because that deals with cases that might be in front of him.
Tell us what your philosophy is.
Are you someone who believes in are you an originalist, for example, somebody who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers meant it to be?
What are your views about uh the role of the federal government as opposed to states?
Uh what criteria do you believe need to be in place in order to overturn a death sentence?
I think that it is fair and it is proper to ask those ask those questions.
And I don't think Robert's gonna answer them, and I think he ought to.
What is not fair is to go on this document search in an attempt to find a memo somewhere that you use to try to make him into a caricature of what he is, something that he really isn't.
Thank you for the call, James.
Appreciate it.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
We're talking about the nomination of John Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States.
We had a caller who suggested that because we don't know a lot about Roberts, that every single document that he ever produced while working for the federal government ought to be a public record and ought to be turned over to the committee.
I think you pretty much know what's going to be in those documents and records, the same sort of thing that any advisor to a Republican president would have there.
They're looking for one line and they're looking for one sentence they can use as an excuse to start rip ripping on him because they don't have anything else right now.
To California and John.
John, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, how are you?
I'm great, thank you.
You're doing a great job there, but I have to disagree with Anna Roberts case.
Um Judge Roberts should not have to answer questions about what he would his decisions basically on a case before the cases come before the I agree with that.
I agree with that that he shouldn't answer a specific question on how he would rule.
I'm referring, however, to general questions, in which he talks about his overall legal philosophy and answer questions about uh you know about his opinions on things.
I see a I I see Justice Scalia all the time talking about things.
So obviously you have the ability to do it without tipping your hand as to how you're going to rule in a specific instance.
I don't have any problem at all with asking him general questions about his legal philosophy and on stands that he may have on issues.
Now I don't think those should be excuses then to not confirm him, but I don't have a problem with asking those types of questions.
But it has to be general questions.
Even some of those general questions, though, Ginsburg and Suter didn't answer.
And of course the Pelicans being the gentleman and and Oh, I I under I understand that.
We got a little problem with the telephone line.
Thanks, John.
I agree with you.
The questions have to be general.
I've heard Justice Scalia speak at length, however, about how improper it was for the court to consider foreign law in a ruling that it had made in an earlier case.
So he was willing to be very, very specific.
Justice Scalia also speaks great with great passion about how he is an originalist, someone who believes that the Constitution ought to be interpreted as the framers intended when they wrote it.
I don't know if that's Roberts' position or not, but I'd like to hear him answer those questions, and I don't think that he should take a dive on that.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg polled the same thing.
She didn't answer anything when she was being confirmed by the United States Senate.
Literally would not answer anything.
I don't think she should have been able to get away with it.
Now, if the Democrats do make a stink about Roberts's refusal to answer specific questions that they have, they can be reminded that they didn't they weren't bothered at all when Ruth Ginsburg wouldn't answer anything.
Melbourne Florida and Chris.
Chris, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Thanks, Mark.
How are you doing today?
I'm great, thank you.
My point is it's not over the you know whether he'll be a good justice or not, but rather I think the Democrats are going to let him be confirmed easily.
You know, you'll have Leaky Leahy and the Cook fringe.
They'll make some noise.
Why do you think?
Why do you think they'll let him be confirmed easily?
And the reason is because we've got a five to four.
Whenever there's a five to four decision, okay, it's Scalia and Chris Thomas and O'Connor.
So he's just replacing that fourth vote in that minority position.
I don't agree with you.
I think that O'Connor is much more often the fifth vote.
Uh I believe that Sandra Day O'Connor has almost been a one-woman United States Supreme Court.
I think that more than Anthony Kennedy, she's been the decisive vote on just about everything.
This particular nomination is very, very important.
O'Connor has always been the swing vote.
In fact, there have been times in which the other eight justices didn't seem to matter that you knew going in that you'd have four on the right and four on the left, and whichever way O'Connor went, it's certainly been that way with a lot of the uh cases with regard to religion in American society.
She goes one way on one case like that and goes the other way on the other, and she's really been the decisive voice.
By assuming this position, Roberts, I think becomes the most important justice on the court.
So I don't agree with your thesis.
I think that he's going to be more important uh than you think.
Well, Kennedy Kennedy has moved to the left if he's.
Uh quite quite a bit.
Uh, he has.
I still think that uh O'Connor is closer to the middle, but you're right, Anthony Kennedy has moved a little bit to the left.
So she'll vote to confirm him, and as well as most of the other Democrats.
You'll have uh there'll be no filibuster.
And I think the reason Oh, I do believe he'll be confirmed, and I think he'll be confirmed rather r by a large margin.
But my point was is that between now and then they're going to turn this into a large issue and they're going to try to bloody him up.
But when it comes to actually casting a record vote, yeah, I think he'll probably be confirmed 75-25 80 to 20.
But this next four or five, six weeks in between, I think will be real, real rough.
I do believe that he is going to be an extremely important justice, though, because I think the one he is replacing O'Connor, uh, has been the decisive vote uh more often than not.
Thank you for the call, Chris.
Cell phone in Columbus, Ohio.
Rick, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark, how are you doing?
I'm great, thanks.
Uh I just a couple days ago I read this article.
Let me go back a little bit.
Ginsburg standard is what you were talking about.
Ginsburg standards.
Right.
You don't have to answer anything.
They're not answering any questions, yeah.
That's right.
Uh, anyway, I read this article.
I thought it was a parody at first, but I'm gonna just go read just one thing real quickly, we're short on time.
Okay.
Democrat senator John Kerry wants the White House to release all documents and memos from state Supreme Court uh for Supreme Court nominee Johnson.
Has he released his own military records yet?
Here's a guy who is aspiring to the presidency of the United States, and he wouldn't turn over his own military records, but he's demanding that confidential legal documents prepared by John Roberts ought to be.
If there is anyone in America who should not be allowed to demand that anyone else turn over records, it's John Kerry.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
My name is Mark Belling.
I'm sitting in for Rush.
Be sure to check out the Club Gitmo Gallery at Rush Limbaugh.com and keep those pictures coming.
Does it sound like I'm reading this or does this sound natural?
Buy Club Gitmo stuff at the EIB store at Rush Limbaugh.com, then email us a photo of yourself wearing your club Gitmo gear.
You can send it to Club Gitmo at Rushlimbaugh.com.
That's Club Gitmo at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I'm gonna post it in the Club Gitmaw Gallery, which is updated daily.
Also, while Russia's away on vacation, we're going to be podcasting the guest host shows for members of Rush 24 7.
I don't think I've ever been podcasted before.
Uh adding some podcast bonus materials, including exclusive audio of Russia's unedited interview with Rudy Giuliani.
The print interview is going to appear in the next issue of the Limbaugh Letters, so join Rush 24 7 to get all of that material.
We are discussing the nomination of Justice Roberts.
There's been some hand wringing about him from the right as well as the left.
Ann Colter wrote a column in which she said, Look, the guy's a blank slate, and every blank slate that's ever been nominated by a Republican president has turned out to be a disaster.
They all moved to the left.
David Souter from New Hampshire was a blank slate.
He didn't answer any questions.
Democrats objected to that at the time, and he immediately went to the court and joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.
And there is some concern that Roberts, without a long track record of dealing with conservative issues, and without any kind of a record of being involved, ideologically at least on the right, that he may be another moderate, that he may be an Anthony Kennedy, worse a Sandra Day O'Connor or nightmare scenario, a David Souter.
I don't agree with that.
I think he is going to surprise and I I feel like I shouldn't say this because I don't want to tip the left off to it.
I believe when Roberts becomes Justice Roberts, he is going to be a solid conservative and may even surprise to the right.
I think he will be at least as far right as Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom he was a law clerk, and may even be as far to the right as Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
Why do I think this?
President Bush has always done what he has said he is going to do.
The war on terror, right after 9-11, he made it clear that we weren't just going to try to fight terror organizations.
We were going to fight the nations that defended them.
He made it clear that he was going to support a national tax cut.
He made it clear that he was going to try to make Social Security more of an ownership program.
He's not getting his way on that, but he followed through and did what he said.
And in two different presidential election campaigns, both in the Republican primaries in early 2000 and the general election, and again when he was running for re-election in 2004, President Bush made it very clear that he was looking for, in a Supreme Court justice, someone who was going to interpret the Constitution as the founders intended.
When asked who his model would be, he said, Justice Scalia.
When Bush has said things like this, he's always done this.
And I believe that Bush knows exactly what he's getting in John Roberts.
The word was put out after the Roberts nomination that, no, the President didn't ask him about his views on this issue or that issue, John Roberts has been around for a long time.
He's part of the Washington legal community.
There are people who know where he's coming from, and I think the president knows exactly what he's getting in Roberts.
Secondly, and this is a very important point.
One of Bush's great strengths as a leader has been the individuals he has chosen for high office.
When he has had to make decisions like this in the past, he has chosen outstanding people.
It was President Bush that gave us Rumsfeld, who I love as defense secretary.
It was President Bush that gave us Condy Rice, who is going to go down as the best Secretary of State of the last 50 years.
And it was President Bush who defied all conventional political wisdom when he chose Cheney to be his vice president.
Dick Cheney brought nothing to the ticket in 2000.
Nothing.
He came from Wyoming with three electoral votes that were solidly Republican anyway.
He didn't exactly bring a lot of charisma.
He didn't bring any sort of base from support from having run for president before.
What he brought instead was extreme competence.
And Bush chose to make Cheney the most active vice president, perhaps in the nation's history.
Dick Cheney is a major player on everything that happens in this administration rather than an afterthought, as Al Gore was for Bill Clinton and as every vice president has ever been.
Bush knew that that nomination and that choice for vice president was important.
And he took somebody who he knew exactly who he knew was going to be the exact person for the job.
I don't believe for a minute that Bush has blown this.
I think first of all, the president wants a Scalia.
He wants an originalist.
And I believe that he's gotten it.
And I think that the nomination of Roberts is going to go down as a tremendous victory for conservatives.
And all the lefties who think, well, it could have been worse.
He could have nominated a scalia.
I think Roberts might turn out to be a scalia.
I think it is an outstanding choice and an inspired choice.
Ohio and uh Babylon, you're on Russia's program.
Hello.
Yeah, I am liberal, and I think that he's a pretty good choice as far as liberals are concerned.
Um I don't think that means he's not a good one for conservatives.
I think he's going to interpret the Constitution and the laws pretty strictly.
I don't think he's going to put his own spin on them.
Um, on the other hand, I know a lot of conservatives would probably be concerned.
I'm pretty sure that he would have supported Oregon's right to have medical marijuana, which I know hasn't been real popular with conservatives because of his take on the commerce clause.
Um I know that he's been in favor of states' rights on that issue before, so he in fact uh he in fact did was one of the attorneys who represented the states in the lawsuit against Microsoft.
One of the things that you look at in his record, you do see seem to see him as somebody who does believe in the ability of the states to pass their own legislation without micromanaging from the federal government.
I think that that's probably there.
Yeah, I think that's definitely true.
Um, and I think that's an important part of the Constitution, actually.
As far as I've seen, that's one of the areas that I've agreed with Thomas on.
He's also been in favor of states' rights in most instances.
Yeah, well, and the states' rights question has been one in which some conservatives are on one side and some are on another, and the same thing with uh with with some of the liberals.
I just think that Bush is getting exactly what he's looking for here because the president always gets what he's looking for.
The only exception I can think of where you had a high-level Bush appointee who didn't always seem to be on the same page was Colin Powell.
But other than that, can anyone think of a nominee for any position that President Bush has made that the president ever regretted?
Or that you got someone that wasn't on the same page as President Bush.
It just hasn't happened, and I don't I don't think it's going to happen.
Well, I've been given Paul O'Neill as an example.
Maybe, but how maybe maybe Paul O'Neill?
I think Ashcroft is exactly what Bush was looking for.
I mean, a lot of people may not have liked him, but I think that that was exactly what President Bush was looking for.
Oh smugly, they're giving me Paul O'Neill, trying to find the one exception.
All right, I'll give you Paul O'Neill.
Thank you for the call, Babylon.
To West Palm Beach and Robert.
Robert, you're on EIB.
Hey, Mark, thanks for taking my call.
About five calls back, uh gentlemen ask, uh, do we do I support this uh nominee just because he's Republican?
The answer is no.
The reason I support him is because the nominee was nominated by a Republican president that I voted for.
And a lot of people don't seem to misunderstand how judges get on the court.
The Democratic Party has to realize that they are the minority party and they don't get to pick the judges.
Well, they've wanted to pick the judges.
They've certainly wanted to do that with the appeals court judges.
They especially want to try to do it now because they don't have the ability to influence anything else in the national debate because they lose everything.
They don't have the majority of the governorships.
They have a minority in the House, they have a minority in the Senate, and they've lost the presidency, two elections in a row.
They don't really understand why they keep losing, but they want to have influence somewhere, so they've used this filibuster tactic to try to block federal judges, and they've they've pretty much lost that battle as well.
I don't agree with you that simply because a Republican president picks the justice that I feel an obligation to support him because some Republican presidents have picked disasters.
Gerald Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, the most liberal member of the court.
The first President Bush gave us David David Souter.
Some are disappointed with Justice Kennedy, who President Reagan gave us.
This nominee, though, I think is going to be outstanding.
He's certainly qualified.
The fact that they can't come up with anything other than show us the records indicates that they haven't been able to lay a substantive glove on him.
But my point was the process is that the sitting president gets to pick who he wants, who he feels is going to be taking the the uh the thoughts of that.
That's the way it's supposed to work, and it's the way it worked for Bill Clinton.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, second most liberal justice on the entire court, was confirmed with, I believe, over 90 votes in the United States Senate.
Almost all the Republicans voted for Ginsburg.
Breyer also won by an overwhelming majority.
Breyer and Ginsburg are both very liberal, yet the Republicans did accept Clinton's right to choose a nominee.
So long as the individual is qualified, and so long as the individual is not tainted by scandal, I believe that person ought to be confirmed.
In the case of both uh of just uh Justice Roberts, he's certainly qualified, and nobody has raised anything that would point to any sort of a scandal, so barring that he certainly ought to be confirmed, and that's been the standard that's been held in the past.
Thank you for the call.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
You know, it is hot everywhere in America today.
USA Today has that color-coded weather map on the back page, which I'm just addicted to looking at, even though I have I couldn't care less what the weather is anywhere other than where I am.
It's just so cool to look at.
The whole country is like some maroon.
Like we're all Death Valley California.
It's like 90 degrees everywhere in America today.
Everywhere.
Uh Rush is off marking that occasion with a vacation, and I am here today.
Uh John McCain, we haven't talked about Senator McCain in today's program.
He's an obsession of mine.
He is weighing in with his thoughts on the Supreme Court nomination.
He said, Well, John John Roberts is fine, but I think it's important, and I hope I don't say this the wrong way, but it's clear that we need women on the U.S. Supreme Court.
So said McCain on ABC's This Week.
Who does this week now?
Obviously, David Brinkley doesn't do it anymore.
Sam Donaldson doesn't do it anymore.
Is is Cokey there yet, or is she gone too?
George Stephanopoulos, does he have it all to himself?
Okay.
Um so uh McCain is very upset that we don't have women on the Supreme Court.
First of all, we do still have a woman on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I hope that Senator McCain, who represents the left wing or what's left of it of the Republican Party, and the real left wing in America.
I hope they make this a major issue, and I hope they dec decry and deplore the fact that we had two women on the court and now we only have one.
I want them to do this because I have a favored nominee for the next seat.
I love Janice Rogers Brown.
Just confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
Put her on in the next appointment, presumably Chief Justice Rehnquist, make her Chief Justice of the United States and say, okay, you wanted a woman.
You felt as though we needed female representation.
You also have appeals judge Edith Jones, who is very conservative and would be very, very good.
There's been some suggestion that President Bush was saving the controversial nomination for the next one.
That he wanted the first justice to be confirmed rather easily, and the real controversial one will be the next one, uh the next one that comes around.
That may be the case.
I do have hopes, however, that the nominee who will replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, presuming that he does have to leave the court uh within the next couple of years, will be someone who is very conservative, just given the nature of the position of Chief Justice and the influence the Chief Justice often has in determining which cases the court will take and will not take.
I think that is a very, very important one uh to get a conservative.
I don't want to be misconstrued with regard to my thoughts on how the Democrats are going to handle the nomination of Judge Roberts.
I believe he will be confirmed.
They will confirm him in the end.
First of all, they can't stop him.
There are 55, 56 counting Vice President Shaney, Republican votes in the U.S. Senate.
They will invoke the nuclear option if they have to do it.
There are a lot of Democrats who are not going to want to go on record, particularly in swing states, as having voted against this justice.
It's what's going to happen in between that I think will ru will be rough.
And they're going to establish this principle that, well, we're not opposing Judge Roberts.
We are standing up for the right to see these important documents.
We are confirming people to the United States Supreme Court.
It is critical that we know everything about that nominee, and they will use that as their platform to make their last stand, but in the end I suspect they'll fold.
To Dayton, Ohio and Chris, Chris, you're on EIB.
Hey, Mark, thanks for taking my call.
I actually just finished reading a book by Chief Justice Rehnquest called the Supreme Court, written for non-lawyers.
Um in there, he actually brings up a lot of the history directly relating to what your earlier caller had spoken about.
And the history is basically there have been Supreme Court justices who had never served as judges before in their entire lives.
Correct.
And, you know, there have actually been Supreme Court justices who didn't even graduate from law school in the distant past.
So to say that someone after only two years of sitting on a federal court does not have the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice is absolutely insane.
What we need to look at is this person's this person's belief structure, insofar as the Constitution is concerned.
He's not interpreting anything other than previous cases and the the way they apply to federal I agree with you certainly on the point with regard to qualifications.
As a conservative who understands how important the court is, I do have strong opinions as to which type of justice the president should nominate.
just as there are Democrats out there who have strong opinions on the other side.
I think, though, that our opinions are important only as so far as we try to influence the president on who to nominate.
Once the president makes a nomination, those views should be largely irrelevant in the confirmation process if the person has integrity and if the person has sufficient qualifications.
I do think that President Bush has hit a home run here.
Now, obviously, Roberts is qualified.
Obviously, he has integrity.
And I think he's going to surprise people as to how solid he is when he rules from a conservative point of view.
Thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
My name is Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush.
Very, very exciting news.
Reading today's New York Times.
Al Gore's TV network.
You know, he's remember he said he's going to do a TV network.
It's actually ready and it's going to go on the air in a week.
It'll be on some cable systems immediately.
Dish network.
Uh Gore TV.
That's the name of it.
Gore T no, it's really called current.
He says he's going to rely primarily on submissions from the audience that are three to ten minutes in length that he and other producers will choose.
Oh, is this going to be good?
Al Gore picks your favorite home video to put on television.
This will be captivating.
Wonder if any of our club git mode tapes are going to be uh are going to show up there.
I'd like some submissions for the Al Gore Network.
Believe it'll be on the internet too since he invented it.
▲
Export Selection