All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
July 27, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the Rush Limb Law Program, 1-800-282-2882.
What a great day to be in America.
Again, I'm reveling over the victory that I think turns a corner, at least in our corner of the world, preserving the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, 29-foot-high cross and all.
77% of the vote yesterday in a special election that got national news because, of course, it replaces a mayor who resigned.
Two of our councilmen in the Stripper Gate found guilty by a federal jury of multiple federal felonies in connection with taking bribes and so forth and so on.
So we've had quite an exciting political season out here in San Diego.
But the more interesting of everything, and I think the more lasting achievement, is the public standing once and for all for the founders' constitution, for freedom for religion, not from religion, and the idea that our Mount Siledad National War Memorial will be preserved.
Seeking to, and this caught my attention, the Democratic Leadership Council, out of which came Bill Clinton in 1992, is seeking to bring the Democratic Party back into the center.
And even more radically than that, Governor Tom Bilsack, Iowa governor who is the chair, had this meeting and told everybody at the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, quote, we've got to be for something.
And it's pretty clear America is waiting for us.
They're desperate to know what we're for, unquote.
Yes, governor, that has been a question on our minds for quite some time.
We realize you're against every single thing George Bush does or says in every possible way.
It's evil because George Bush said it or did it or wants to do it or proposed it or whatever.
Well, what are you for?
And you've been losing elections.
May I be so bold as to offer this advice.
You've been losing elections because the general American common sense public looks at the leadership of your party and says, so when you guys get in, what are you going to do?
What are you for?
Hillary Clinton made a speech there as well, and this has got the left very upset.
She said that the Democrats have to move to the middle and stand up for values, calling for an ideological ceasefire between left and right within the Democratic Party.
Confirmation by the frontrunner for the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton.
Confirmation by her that the party, the Democratic Party, is split.
Split horribly, split badly, split between left and far left and kookie left.
And that's where they are.
They're on the left, and there's the far left.
Then there's the kooky left, the insurgent left, the internationalist communist left.
And those people, that little tail out there, you know, a vast number of Democrats are middle-of-the-road Americans.
But out there on the left, left, left, the tail is wagging that whole dog.
I mean, consider the fit that Chuck Schumer, according to the spectator, threw the fit, that's the way they described it, that he threw when he thought, as Hillary Clinton announced that she would not oppose the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Here is Chuck Schumer, her seatmate from New York, saying that he thought it was a classic Clinton triangulation, leaving him out on a limb by saying, well, you know, Roberts appears to be, oh, by the way, the poll numbers are great.
Let's see.
USA Today's CNN Gallup 59 to 22 say Roberts should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, 59% to 22%.
The Democrats read the polls.
They go, you know what?
Opposing this guy is not exactly right before the election of next year the way to position ourselves.
Schumers feels like he's out on a limb and got caught in the triangulation, you know, the Morris triangulation strategy that Clinton followed.
And he feels like Hillary's following it too.
Well, duh, she wants to win.
Not that she is any more moderate or common sense or centrist, but she has to appear to be.
And the left doesn't understand that.
Let's see.
Influential blogs on the left.
Daily Coss out of Berkeley, California called Clinton's speech, quote, truly disappointing.
Let's see.
The New Democrat Network, which is a way left group, said, quote, if she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she would have worked with the NDN, unquote.
So, ladies and gentlemen, the Democratic Party, even under the whip of Hillary Clinton, is not about to unite or stand for much of anything.
Speeches by Governor Vilsack to the contrary, notwithstanding.
What they're for, you can only glean from the daily press.
For example, now perhaps this is a harsh example.
You bring up your example.
I'd be happy to get into this.
What are the Democrats for?
Here's what they're for in Miami, where the Democrats control the municipal government in Miami.
Miami city leaders apologizing today for a summer camp program they ran called a watermelon eating contest, unquote.
The largely black group of kids went to the ghetto-style talent show at the summer camp to engage in the watermelon eating contest.
The Miami Parks director, Ernest Burkin, who is black, released a formal apology and announced the renaming of the talent show.
Now it's called the Funky Talent Show.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, is this what they're for?
Is this the Sheetsbird wing of the Democrat Party?
I'm desperately getting around to trying to figure out what are they for.
Now, for instance, I got this.
Here's the second one on the list.
They are for making manufacturers of guns guilty for the crimes committed by people who use the guns in crime.
Huh?
Yeah, let me go through that one more time.
I know it doesn't make sense.
I'm just saying this is what they're for.
As the assault weapons ban expired with a whimper last year, the Democrats regrouped, you know, the gun-controlled Democrats regrouped.
Now they want, and there are lawsuits all over the place now, 25 major lawsuits, lots of cities involved, New York and Washington, D.C., two of them, in front of highly creative judges, suits that could drag on for years, alleging that just because Mr. X held up the convenience store and shot the owner, that the manufacturer of that gun ought to be held liable for the death.
Hello?
That flies in the face of about 1,200 years of the way we think about crime.
Crime is committed by people.
Crime is committed by the decision of people to commit a crime.
What they use in the crime, club, knife, gun, SUV, Gitmo t-shirt.
I don't know what whatever they use, club getmo gear, I don't know, whatever they use in the crime, it does not mean that the person who made that item is guilty of the crime.
The item is perfectly legal and used in legal contexts.
If it can be used in an illegal context, does that mean the person who built it is going to be guilty of the crime?
Because if you extend that logic, we can't build anything more in the United States.
We're done.
So that's what the Democrats stand for.
Here's the latest from the Washington Times.
Democrats have a Social Security proposal, counterproposal out at long last called Amerisave.
Amerisave.
Their idea is that after we pay all the taxes that are levied now and will be levied in the future, should there be a Democrat president, whatever we have left that we haven't applied to our personal bills, whatever is left, the crumbs off the table that we applied to our personal bills, we better start saving more of that because all the government programs that we've kicked the tax money into aren't going to be sufficient when we're retired.
So please start saving more.
Now, if that isn't an admission that the government programs are failing, I don't know what is.
Now they want us to save more of the money that is left over after they've taken.
So the 401ks, and you know what?
I actually agree with this.
We ought to have more savings in 401ks.
And the first thing you do is lift the limit.
There's a limit on what you can put into your own 401k in a given year.
Why is there a limit?
If I want to save more than the next guy, how come I can't save more?
And put it aside.
Oh, I know.
What was I thinking?
If I save more, I'll have more.
If I'll have more, I'll probably vote Republican to save it from being confiscated when I'm retired, which is what Clinton did in 93 when he raised the tax on Social Security.
See, I've been watching the Democrats.
I know what they do.
If I have more, they'll take more.
If I have more, I'll be voting Republican to keep them from taking more.
By the way, since a part of this program on an almost daily basis has to be devoted to giving you the good news you can't get anywhere else in any other media about the successes of the Bush administration, may I, and I have reached that point in the program.
Now I'm being told, no, I haven't.
I've reached a break.
All right.
Let me come back with the good news of what is working.
I know this is so rare a moment.
You may want to just pause, call your friends, gather around, hold hands, and think for a moment, just om, and try to get the fact that we're now going to vibe you with, it's a little California talk there, vibe you with some good news.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush After This.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB Network.
Roger Hedgecock from KOGO Radio in San Diego filling in for Rush today and tomorrow and having a lot of fun.
I know what Rush means now, having more fun than a human being should have.
This is, and because there's such good news for the Bush administration, and this is the, in many, many respects, and I want to pick up on one of them that the president emphasized when he was running first in his first term, talking about education reform more than anything else, I guess, except tax cuts in that first campaign.
And here was coming out of Texas, a governor of Texas saying, look, you can emphasize the basics.
You can improve education.
You can create a more literate generation than we have been doing.
Public education doesn't need to fail, which it demonstrably is.
So what happened?
Well, according to, and this is an independent group now, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, this group publishes a yearly report.
They've been doing it since the early 1970s, taking a representative sample of 9, 13, and 17-year-olds in the K-12 system in public education.
They've been doing it since the early 1970s.
This year's report contains two striking results.
The first result is that America's nine-year-olds posted their best scores in reading and math since the tests were introduced in 1971 in reading and 73 in math.
That's 30 years plus.
See, I was pretty good at math, too.
30 years plus, whatever it is.
It's 30 plus years.
And the best, so the nine-year-olds had the best scores in reading and math since this group has been looking at them.
The second striking result of this year's report is that the gap between the achievement of white students and the achievement of minorities is narrowing.
Nine-year-olds, by the way, who made the biggest gains of all were black nine-year-olds, who were the farthest behind when this all started to be looked at.
Now, why is that?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, what George Bush did when he got into office is take his Texas emphasis on basics to the federal level with No Child Left Behind, which is far from being perfect, like most laws, and has all kinds of defects we can talk about and get pessimistic about.
But the fact is that the overall emphasis and the reward and punishment sections of No Child Left Behind have filtered down, if only in attitude and emphasis, to every school district in this country.
That's the only thing that's changed.
The other thing that's changed is nine-year-olds and particularly nine-year-old blacks are doing a lot better in reading and math.
And that's a real good thing.
Now, I want to get to, let's get a call in here first.
Here's Alan in Richmond, Virginia.
Alan, welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Program.
Hey, Roger.
It's good to talk to you.
I love it when you fill in.
This Amerisave thing, I think we need to form the National Organization for the Finding of Liberal Brain Matter.
I mean, there's so many of these things out there.
And do they think we're as stupid as they are that we would buy a plan that we do every day already?
I mean, I don't understand their point behind this.
They sit down for six months to come up with a plan that means absolutely nothing and we're supposed to buy it.
Well, it does mean something specific that you ought to be aware of, Alan.
According to press reports, this is in the Washington Times today.
The Democrats' plan for getting people to save more includes, of course, bigger government and more expenditure.
Through a tax refund, the Democrats' plan would match dollar for dollar the first $1,000 that an individual contributes to an individual retirement account, 401k or some similar account.
It would also provide a tax credit for employers who offer these saving plans, encouraging employers to automatically enroll employees in these type of accounts.
The plan is estimated to cost taxpayers $75 billion over 10 years.
So what they want to do is take money out of your paycheck at one end, stick it in on the other end, and then say, look, here's what we're doing for you.
I'm going to get money back in the first place.
I don't need what I want with it.
Yeah.
No, see, that's the difference.
Well, I think we've highlighted today anyway, again, the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Appreciate the call, Alan.
Here's Gwen in Cleveland, Ohio.
Gwen, welcome to the program.
Hi, Roger.
I'm really excited to talk to you today.
Hey, thanks for calling.
What's up?
Well, I'm a school teacher, and I was interested in your comment about the No Child Left Behind Act.
And what I see is that it pushes education to the forefront, and it makes parents be even more accountable for their kids' education.
And, you know, teachers can't do it alone.
And when the parents are also more involved, you're going to have a better success.
There isn't any question about that.
And there isn't any question that parental responsibility has been falling down in this country horribly.
There isn't any question that we've also neutered our teachers.
They can't discipline.
They can't get rid of troublemakers.
They can't foster a learning attitude in the classroom without being called harassers or discriminating or any of that other stuff that happens to teachers all the time, every day.
It's just like the cops.
We've asked these people to do an important job, a critical job, and then we've taken away the tools to do that job.
You are absolutely correct.
And it's one of the most frustrating parts of education.
And I think that's one of the reasons why we're having such a difficult time recruiting competent teachers in the field.
Well, that's true, too.
Gosh, we have so much problem out here.
It's just amazing.
So the people we do get to teach are ideological leftists, radical lesbians, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
They're the ones going into teaching.
It's just crazy.
I agree.
I feel like minority many times.
Well, I appreciate your service because it's so important.
Education couldn't be more important.
Without an educated citizenry, our Constitution can be shredded this way and that, and nobody will know the difference.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Hey, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I want to get into the Durbin's latest Senator Durbin.
Did this guy wait his whole life to be this popular?
Richard Durbin from Illinois has asked a question of Judge John Roberts that has brought a reaction.
And the reaction has brought up some very interesting political back and forth on this Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court that I want to get into.
And then, of course, into CAFTA.
The president is meeting the Central American Free Trade Agreement, like NAFTA.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement is up before the House today.
Very, very much a squeaker, ladies and gentlemen, between free trade and protectionist impulses here.
And the president is on Capitol Hill talking to the Republicans to try to get some consensus on which way the Republicans are going to vote in the House after it did pass the Senate.
We'll get into that as well.
But Senator Durbin's religious litmus test in the party of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Catholic.
Senator Durbin proposes a Catholic litmus test for the Supreme Court after this.
Welcome back to the Russian Limbaugh Program.
I'm Roger Hedgecock coming at you from the left coast here at San Diego, California, where we had a terrific victory yesterday and in a special election.
77% of the city voters agreeing that the cross incorporated into and part of the Mount Soledad National War Memorial on Mount Soledad near La Jolla, that that cross should be kept.
The land should be transferred to the feds for inclusion in a federal war memorial system that includes war memorials with crosses, for instance, at Gettysburg and Arlington, etc.
And this was a surprising result.
77%.
So where you are fighting these culture wars against atheists and ACLU and all of that to try to shred the founders constitution and substitute some other meaning, for example, freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
This is a kind of victory that I want you to savor with me.
All right, let's get to the phones.
Mike in Boca Raton, Florida.
Hi, Mike.
Welcome to the Russ Show.
Yeah.
Hello?
Yeah, hi.
Yeah, I just was calling because I'm pregnant with anticipation, waiting for you to tell me all the good things that our great president has done for us in the last five and a half years.
You talked about a program of No Child Left Behind, which, to the best of my knowledge, is nothing more than an unfunded mandate by the federal government.
So, you know, I don't know what you're talking that is such a great thing that he's done for us.
Well, as I was saying, there's obviously a lot of criticism right, left, and center about the details of No Child Left Behind.
There's certainly a lot of debate about it, but there's no debate about the fact that the emphasis on reading, writing, and math has resulted in smarter nine-year-olds and better grades and people more prepared to live in the real world and get a real education out of public education.
And I think, Mike, that's a plus, don't you?
Well, absolutely, it's a plus, but there's nothing the President of the United States has done for our educational system.
And look at Florida, where his brother is the governor.
I mean, we've got one of the worst educational systems in the United States of America.
Well, the connection I made, Mike, and that's, of course, your Floridian problem, but the connection I made was that Mr. Bush.
Are you an American?
Mr. Bush was the author of the No Child Left Behind bill, which is credited for the improvements that you just agreed were good.
It's an unfunded mandate.
It doesn't mean anything but the paper that it's written on until they put money behind it.
So, yeah, I don't know.
It's an unfunded mandate.
Explain yourself.
What is the absolute best thing that the President of the United States has done in his five years?
What the grand pinnacle thing that he's done.
I'm waiting.
I'm pregnant with anticipation.
No, sir.
What is he done so good for us?
You're just running off at the mouth because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You just agreed with me.
You're going to tell me.
Mike, just shut up for just a minute, please.
You're trying to tell me that you agree that No Child Left Behind has raised test scores and that's a good thing.
Then in the same breath, without even pausing, you give me the contradictory thought that it's an unfunded mandate, whatever that means, and therefore it's evil, and what else has he done for us in five years?
I just wanted to devote a certain portion of the program to the good news you will never hear anywhere else in the media.
But why is that?
That's another thing that you people in the Republican Party or the conservative movement says it's a liberal bias.
Everyone knows it as somewhat educated at all.
There is no liberal bias in the media any longer.
It's all owned by corporations, which are Republican.
Yeah.
Okay, so Mike, can you cite another place where these are the same?
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the absolute number of best thing that you guys can hang your head at.
I'm sorry.
I know you're used to just interrupting people and never allowing me to answer one of your questions, but I want to answer one of your questions.
Can you tell me with respect?
No, you're not.
You're interrupting me every time you can.
No, you're just avoiding that question.
You're pregnant with ignorance, Mike, and I'm going to cut off this conversation now because we can't have it.
And I know the rest of the audience is simply frustrated by the inability of you to come to grips with a thought that doesn't contradict what you said two seconds before.
There is no other place that I have found other than The Economist magazine that these figures of test score improvement in math and reading, because of the No Child Left Behind mandates, unfunded or not, there's no other place I've read that test scores are going up in public education because of George Bush and what he and Ted Kennedy did in the No Child Left Behind bill.
Haven't seen it anywhere.
If you've seen it anywhere, call and tell me.
Here's Brad in Indianapolis.
Hi, Brad.
Hello, sir.
How are you?
Hi, good.
You know, you touched on a topic that's near and dear to my heart today, which is really the main reason why I'm calling as far as what do Democrats believe in.
And it just seems that it's a huge issue that we can center around.
And nobody ever asked that question.
Rush always talks about the arena of ideas.
But I listen to talk radio all day long.
You watch TV, you watch the news, you hear even write, you know, Republican politicians, but it's never put back in Democrats' laps, effectively, to say, articulate what you believe in.
And it just seems that it's such a winning position for us to take that it amazes me why it's never asked.
Occasionally, I'll hear somebody call in when you host, and they'll say, you know, I'm from the left, don't necessarily believe what you believe, but then you put it back on them and say, well, I'll answer your question, but tell me what you believe in.
And they never do.
No.
And it just seems that that question's not asked enough, and I wondered if you knew why.
Because they're caught in a rut.
If you heard this last caller, for example, as a good example, he's caught in the rut of anti-Bush.
It's become an obsession.
It's become, I think, a diagnosable disease among activist Democrats that they're so caught up after the stealing of the election in Florida and the first term and the second term where the swift boat veterans and the sneak and all that.
They're just so caught up and fanatic and anti-Bush that they can't see anything else.
They have defined themselves as the anti-Bush, and that's all they are.
Ask where is the new proposals.
If you don't like the war in Iraq, where's your war on terror proposal?
Where's your plan to safeguard America?
Where's your plan to save Social Security from the inevitable bankruptcy of over-promising and underfunding?
Where's your plan, in other words, on any of the topics of the day for which common sense, ordinary, everyday Americans are asking the political system, listen, come to grips here.
Come to grips here.
These are issues.
They affect us.
They affect our safety.
They affect our financial future.
They affect us and our families.
What are your ideas?
They're getting ideas from George Bush.
May not all be great.
May not all be the total solution.
I'm a big critic of the administration on immigration and other issues we'll bring up the next hour.
But George Bush has a positive program of ideas.
The Democrats do not.
Governor Vilsack admitted it much, as much at the Democrat Leadership Council Convention in Ohio just last week.
He said it.
We've got to have positive ideas.
We've got to stand for something, he said.
Yeah, sooner or later, you really do.
That's my point.
Now, fun stuff with Senator Durbin, who is a Catholic, at least that's what he says, in Illinois, out of Illinois, and apparently in the green room at some NBC broadcast, the green room being they put people who are going to be guests on these programs, and one was coming and one was going.
And it was Mr. Senator Durbin and George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote in the Los Angeles Times a column saying that If Roberts is a devout Catholic,
if John Roberts, if Judge Roberts, nominated to the Supreme Court, is a devout Catholic and the Catholic Church considers something immoral, like abortion, which is before the court, what would he do?
What would Judge Roberts do in the Supreme Court under that circumstance?
And Judge Roberts, in this column by Professor Turley, was reported to have said, Well, I'd have to recuse myself.
I'd have to step aside.
Now, hey, that's the wrong answer, just personal, my personal thing.
And let's assume that that's the answer he did give.
Let's assume that this happened.
Because Mr. Turley, in his column, said that it was Senator Durbin that was his source for this.
Senator Durbin, because he then got criticized, wait a minute, Durbin, do you mean to tell me you're going to ask John Roberts to have a religious test to be a Supreme Court nominee?
Are you really saying that committed Catholics cannot be Supreme Court members if they have to recuse themselves on these important issues?
Even assuming that's the right answer, which I don't think it is.
Are you really saying, Senator Durbin, in contravention of the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids a religious test for public office?
Are you really saying you want a religious test?
You're going to ask John Roberts the Catholic question?
Durbin today is backpedaling like crazy, like he always does.
He goes out and says these outrageous things and says, Well, why did anybody pick up on that?
I said that in the green room.
I didn't mean that to be, you know, just like the last one was down on the Senate floor.
Rush publicizes what he says about Hitler and Guitmo and all that stuff.
And then he gets mad because somebody noticed what he said on the Senate floor.
Now somebody notices what he says in the green room at NBC, and he's mad.
He did acknowledge he's the source for the newspaper column, but he says Jonathan Turley did not correctly capture the private conversation.
Mr. Durbin's office clarified that, quote, Judge Roberts said repeatedly he would follow the rule of law, unquote.
Well, nobody's backing down, and it leaves the question: do we now have a test, a religious test?
Are we now on the verge of preventing people in public office because they're Catholic?
I thought the Democratic Party, Senator Durbin, got past this in 1960 when John F. Kennedy asserted that his Catholicism would in no way hinder him from being an effective president of the United States.
I thought we got past this.
I'm Roger Hedgecock on the Rush Show.
Back after this.
Welcome back to The Rush Show.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush Limbaugh here today and tomorrow.
So I get a chance to send all kinds of emails.
We'll talk about tomorrow as a result of the stuff we covered today.
By the way, what's this?
I mean, folks in the West Coast are lampooned constantly.
I'm from San Diego.
And I just look at New York, though, and say, gosh, I don't know.
You guys shouldn't be calling the kettle black here.
Editor Jason Epstein, who was the longtime editorial director at Random House, founder of the New York Review of Books, and husband of jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has not been seen lately at the federal facility in Virginia where his wife has been incarcerated for not giving up her sources.
She's been there for the past three weeks.
Where has Jason Epstein been?
Well, according to the New York Daily News, Mr. Epstein is aboard the luxury ocean liner Silver Shadow in a celeb-glutted Mediterranean cruise while she's down sweltering in the federal facility in Virginia in the 110-degree heat, eating baloney and being brutalized by prison matrons or whatever it is that's going on down there.
To the phones, here's Bruce in Houston, Texas.
Bruce, hi.
Hello, hello.
Quick thing on Roberts and Charlie.
Supreme Court justices do not apply the law.
What they do is they decide whether or not a law is constitutional.
They apply the Constitution.
Correct.
The question in this case is not whether or not his religious views conflict with the law, it's whether he is in conflict with the Constitution.
A very different issue and one that Charlie did not ask.
No, and a very important point because law professors and Democratic senators today believe, as Senator Schumer has said publicly, that the Supreme Court makes law.
This is a fundamental violation of the Constitution.
Fundamental.
If you believe in the separation of powers, that we have a judicial, legislative, and executive branch, and each of those branches has a separate function and a balancing function between the three in order to preserve our liberties.
If you believe that, then you cannot have a Supreme Court, quote, making law, unquote.
As far as abortion goes, what Roberts should say is that he fully supports all parts of the Constitution that were used in Roe versus White.
And then they'll get deadly silent on the other side as everybody flips through their copies trying to find those sections.
You know, since they don't exist, they were made up in the first place.
But he just says, I fully support all sections that were used to decide Roe versus Wade.
And that's the end of that issue.
I think it is, too.
I appreciate the call, Bruce.
By the way, Roberts, I'm starting to like this guy more and more as they've given, as they've released, what was it yesterday, 75,000 pieces of paper.
And of course, the Democrats who demanded the release said, that's not enough.
As if these guys could read 75,000 pages.
They don't even have enough interns that aren't being harassed to read 75,000 pages.
What has been released is interesting.
Because time and again, in his role as Solicitor General in the Solicitor General's office representing the executive branch in his earlier years, time and again as a judge, John Roberts has opted for limitations on the judiciary, limitations on court.
Do you have standing to be here?
Is this a question I should be deciding?
Is this an issue that should be before this court?
Is this an issue that shouldn't be at the legislature, at the executive branch, even to the point of contradicting, let me find that in the stack here.
Contradicting another hero of mine, Ted Olson, Theodore Olson, who became a solicitor general in 2001.
Back in 1982, Olson was suggesting it would be politically advantageous for the Reagan administration to oppose limits on court powers in a complicated issue.
And Roberts was at odds with that.
He said, always and everywhere, our position ought to be that courts should be limited to what the Constitution provides for courts to do, even though there may be a political advantage to us to play the game the Democrats do of trying to get the courts to be the place of last resort to enact legislation that can't get through the legislature.
The Sky Roberts gets better every day.
59% yes on Roberts in the CNN Gallup poll, 22% no.
You wonder why Hillary Clinton is endorsing him?
That's why.
AP reporting, a Wichita, Kansas judge has waived the usual 60-day waiting period and granted an immediate divorce yesterday to Paula Rader, the wife of BTK serial killer Dennis Rader.
Paula Rader in her divorce petition said that her mental and physical condition had been adversely affected by the marriage.
She said she's incompatible with Dennis.
She had no idea that his sexual fantasies had driven him to kill 10 people in the Wichita area.
But he was clearly incompatible.
Good call, Judge.
While Rush is away, podcasting the guest host shows.
I love it.
For members of the Rush 24-7, and by the way, check out the Club Gitmo gallery, rushlimbaugh.com.
Keep those pictures coming.
The Club Gitmo stuff at the EIB store is fun, too.
And then you email the photo of yourself wearing the Club Gitmo gear, and it'll get in there.
It's clubgitmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
It'll be posted on the Club Gitmo gallery, updated daily.
▲
Export Selection