All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
July 29, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
That's right, uh Johnny Donovan, uh Walter E. Williams filling in for Rush, who will be back on Monday.
And you can be on the show uh by calling 800-282-2882, and today we're going to push back the frontiers of ignorance just a little bit more.
Uh let's start off with the Supreme Court nominee.
Now there are a lot of things uh that I picked up in the newspaper today, a lot of comments and observations about the George Bush's nominee for the uh Supreme Court justice.
Let me just kind of go over them just to see what you think about it, whether you agree with me, and probably you do if you're a right thinking American.
One, well, Justice Roberts, uh, I think that he's a constitutionalist.
But however, we're getting questions like from Theodore Shaw, the NAACP legal defense and education fund uh fellow, I guess he's the director of that organization, and he asked the question, what does Theodore I'm sorry, I'm sorry, what does Judge Roberts really truly believe?
How does he feel about this or that?
Well, the question I would want to ask Judge Roberts, can you read the Constitution?
Do you know how to read?
I mean, unlike five of the Supreme Court justices in the recent Kilo case where they decided that the government in New London, Connecticut, could take the private property of one American and turn around and hand it to another private individual.
Now, so I would ask just Judge uh Roberts, can you read the Fifth Amendment?
You know, those 12 words that say, nor shall private property be taken for public use, not private use, for public use without just compensation.
Now, judges ought to be in the business of looking at the law, how it is written.
That is, a judge's judicial philosophy doesn't mean anything.
That is, judges are to apply the law.
This is what separations of power mean.
That is, judges should not be in the policy issues business.
That is, policy belongs to the legislative bodies.
In the case of United States, the Congress.
In the case of states, the state legislature.
But justices should not be in the business of policy, as one judge said when they uh when they voted against the uh the death penalty for a crime committed when a person was a teenager.
One justice talked about evolving world standards.
Now he's making policy.
He should be looking at the law.
Now, Senator Kennedy, our uh wonderful senator from the state of Massachusetts.
Some people call it the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Here's his question.
The basic, here's what Kennedy said yesterday, and it's re uh it's reported, I think in in the Washington Post or one of those newspapers.
He asked the question, whose side is Judge Roberts going to be on.
Now that is stupid.
But it is a stupid uh question.
I mean, think about it.
A judge's job is to apply the rules of the game.
And the rules of the game is the Constitution of the United States.
I mean, that's you the question that Kennedy asks is just as stupid when you're choosing a referee for a baseball game, you're choosing an umpire for a baseball game, and you ask the umpire whose side you're gonna be on.
That's that's stupid.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Now, I mean, the question that you want to ask the umpire is, can you call balls and strikes correctly?
Not whose side you're gonna be on.
I mean, that's you know you don't ask an umpire.
What's your baseball philosophy?
That's what Kennedy would ask.
You know, you're you're thinking about hiring an umpire, and and Senator Kennedy would probably ask this guy, what's your baseball philosophy?
Whose side are you gonna be on?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, wouldn't you call that stupid?
I surely would.
Uh there's something else.
I was watching a group of Democratic congressmen and senators, and they were recently talking about this uh Kilo case, and they were saying that the conservative members of the court are in the hands of big developers and they want to take people's private property.
Now that must assume that the listeners or the viewers are stupid.
Because who were the dissenting judges who dissented in the Kilo versus New London case, where they agreed to take private property from one person and deliver that private property to somebody else.
Who were the dissenting judges?
Well, they were Rehnquist, it was Thomas, and it was Scalia.
And then O'Connors was the only liberal type judge that dissented.
But the majority of people who dissented, who said that the that the Constitution does not allow the taking of private property for public use, uh, they were the conservative judges.
Now here you have some congressmen and senators standing up saying it's the conservative judges on the court that's taking away private property.
What kind of assumptions must they make about you?
Ladies and gentlemen, the assumptions are not very flattering at all.
Now there's there's there, I don't know what to say about it because a lot of guys would say, well, I I believe Kennedy might say, or some of or who's a guy, Durbin or a dustbin.
Uh I think Dirty Harry and Dick Durbin.
I mean, they would say to you, look, we don't really need a judge to read the Constitution of the United States.
We don't need for him to apply the Constitution, because the Constitution is a living document.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, anyone, anyone who said, and I've said this a number of times on the air, anyone who says that the Constitution is a living document, he's also saying that we don't have a Constitution.
Because the Constitution, as I said earlier, represent the rules of the game.
And for the rules of the game to mean anything, they must be fixed.
That's just like if I ask you, would you like to play me poker after the show?
After Mrs. Williams fixes my dinner, of course, and the rules be living.
Well, you know, that means that my two-pair, depending on the circumstances, might beat your full house.
How many people would like to play anything where the rules would be living?
I mean, we could uh instead of calling balls strikes, we can call strikes balls.
For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed.
Now you say, well, Walter, look, times change since 1787 when we had the Constitutional Convention.
Times change.
Well, the framers had insight.
They knew that times would change and maybe you needed to change the Constitution.
So they gave us Article Five as a means to amend the Constitution.
But uh you can't amend the Constitution, or you should not, or the framers did not envision amending the Constitution through some judges in black robes sitting in the corner, all nine of them, having a constitutional convention that is changing the Constitution unilaterally, unilaterally, all by themselves.
So I think if I were voting, I would vote for the confirmation of Judge Roberts, because I think, and all the evidence shows that he understands Constitution, and I believe that he's willing to interpret the Constitution as it is written.
Not according to some European evolving standards, not according to his own philosophy, not according to his own taste.
He would look at the letter of the Constitution.
Very much like Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas, he has his own views, but he's not going to impose his views on us.
And matter of fact, he has voted in ways, you know, as a judge, contrary to his own personal views.
But that's what a justice is supposed to do.
Vote according to what the law says.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be back to discuss this in greater detail after this.
We're back.
Walter Williams sitting in for vacationing rush, and he will be back on Monday, and you can be on with us by calling 800-282-2882.
Let's go to the phones and welcome Cliff from California.
Welcome to show, Cliff.
Uh thank you, Robert.
Thank you for taking my call.
Um as I understand it, I uh you're saying that uh the Supreme Court's primary function is to um uh ensure that laws that have been created by legislative bodies are properly enacted.
Is that what I'm hearing?
I'm saying that Supreme Court justices should follow the Constitution as opposed to make pol making policy.
Policy is a job of the legislature.
Right, and and I guess while I'm I I think about the issue of slavery, where a hundred years ago legislators had enacted laws that had or 150, whatever it was, had enacted laws that had legalized slavery.
And at that point, the the the uh the Supreme Court followed the Constitution and determined that those laws were in conflict with the Constitution and threw them out.
Now it seems like that interpretation would mean oh, they did policy.
But back then you so I I I'm at a law sometimes they do enact policy.
And the policy comes from imposing the tenets of the Constitution over laws that have been improperly enacted by legislative bodies for whatever reason.
And it goes both ways on conservative and liberal issues.
You know, they overthrew slavery, but they also um, you know, like I know a lot of people are against marijuana laws uh who are well wait wait wait a minute, wait a minute.
Now, first of all, at the founding of this country, whether we like it or not, slavery was legal.
Right, that's correct.
Okay, so a Supreme Court justice, he has to look at the law, he just cannot make policy.
That is Congress has to make slavery uh illegal, and in fact, later on, Congress indeed did strike down slavery.
No, it was the Supreme Court that struck on in the Dred Scott decision that um overturned slavery.
They there was there they came in and ruled that a man isn't a property under which in the Dred Scott decision.
Look at that overturn laws that it's wait, wait, wait a way a bit.
Dred Scott decision upheld slavery.
I'm sorry.
Um, well, look, look, when you come on this show, you have to have your ducks in a row.
Let's go to David in Germany.
Welcome to the show.
Welcome.
Hello.
Welcome to the show, David.
Thanks very much for taking my call.
Um I I I just wanted to point out, it seems to me that uh, and I agree with your position, I agree, I'd say with the way um uh Justice Scalia expresses your position.
But it seems to me if you look at the at the at the uh the checks and balances, the three-part uh structure that of our government, one of the one of the reasons why the judiciary has expanded is because uh the legislature is afraid to act.
I mean, if you take uh the the first activist um uh court under under Warren, uh some of the first decisions uh which uh which uh well actually the very first decision that Warren pushed through was a very good decision uh to end uh segregation or at least take the first step toward it.
And there I think you had uh a Congress uh just as they are today for uh uh uh hanging on to their jobs, afraid to make the difficult choices.
And and then uh at times you have the courts stepping in to make the difficult changes, uh to make to take the difficult decisions, and yeah, I think if the legislature was a little bit braver, uh the courts wouldn't be under so much pressure to uh innovate.
Oh, you're absolutely right.
Uh you you there are two points.
Yes, the legislators legislators are cowards, and they would much rather they'd like to do something, but they know it can't stand up to uh uh legislative muster, so they throw it on courts.
For example, like you could never get a law passed through Congress calling for racial or sexual preferences.
So the only way you could get that racial and sexual preferences if you're for it, is for the courts to do it.
And many times the courts are involved in cleaning up the cowardice of the uh officials, as you're pointing out.
You're absolutely right.
Yeah, and I would hope that I mean if that becomes apparent that perhaps l elected officials and the people that elect them uh would uh tolerate a little bit more courage, tolerate uh uh a senator or representative who's willing to act on principles.
Well let me say this, I'm sad to say this, but I don't think that Americans in general would elect to office a congressman or senator that was fully guided by principles.
That is a sad commentary for our country.
Now, imagine for why do I say that?
Well, look at James Madison.
He he's the acknowledged father of the Constitution.
Back in 1794, Congress appropriated fifteen thousand dollars to help some French refugees.
James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate.
And he said, and I'm virtually quoting him, and you can get all these good quotes at my website, it's Walter Williams.com.
And it has a very handsome photo of me as where as uh on the site as well.
But James Madison stood on the floor of the House, and he said, and I'm virtually quoting him, he said, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to spend the money of their constituents for the purposes of benevolence.
That is, James Madison could not find any authorization in the Constitution that allowed government to take the money of one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong.
Now, any politician taking that position today, as Madison and many of our other uh founders, he would not get elected to office.
Americans do not want that kind of person in the Congress or in the Senate or in the or in the White House.
That's a sad tragedy for our country.
That is A principled person just could not make it.
So you find the kind of people that we have today.
But however there's one principled congressman, there actually it's just a handful, and I'm going to have one of those in the in that handful on in the third hour.
And his name is Congressman Shadig from uh Arizona.
And we're going to talk about some interesting uh topics.
But he and a handful of other congressmen, just a few, they're the only ones that have the principle of the founders of our nation.
And it is just amazing to me uh how this handful gets elected.
I guess they have to play a little bit.
We'll be back after this.
We're back, and just in case you're just joining us, uh, we're talking about uh Judge Roberts, uh George Bush's uh Supreme Court nominee, and we're the key thing that we're talking about is that judges are to apply the law,
not their own personal pro uh uh policy or their own personal opinions or evolving national standards, uh in evolving international standards, that's what I mean.
They shouldn't worry about what France is doing.
They take an oath of office to uphold what constitution, guess what constitution a judge takes an oath of office to uphold.
Yes.
I'm not going to give you the answer until the end of the hour.
Let's uh go back to the phones and welcome Mr. Sowell of New New York City.
Hi, Walter.
Hi.
Hi.
Um I just had a comment about your uh your your take on uh congressman's role in representing the rights of their constituencies or the interests of their constituencies.
Um now saying that because the congressman won't vote upon their own principles, however radical or not radical they may be, um I don't think in any way is misrepresenting their constituencies because they're they're clearly voted into that position um in a system of representative democracy to vote as their constituents would vote.
Um and I don't see how that could be bastardizing their position.
Well, well well well, suppose their constituency uh wanted them to uh let's say, okay, you're in New York and their constituency uh wanted them not to allow people from Pennsylvania to come to New York.
Right.
Uh what do you think?
Um truthfully, if my constituency was inclined to vote that way, and you could get every man in New York to to do so and woman, um, then it's the obligation of that congressman through their own position is depending upon my vote for their re-election to vote as I'd wish them to vote.
Right.
Well, see you're you're really making my point.
You're saying that a congressman uh doesn't necessarily act on principle, he acts on what gets him to office, right?
Exactly.
Okay.
Now well, so that's why I said that it's the American people who have lost some uh have lost the uh principles of individual liberty.
How so?
Well, because uh y as you just said, that is if the most of the people in New York uh vote to to uh if they don't want a Pennsylvanian come into New York, right?
Uh the obligation of the Congressman is to uh support a law that uh doesn't allow them to come to New York, right?
Right.
Okay, well what's principled about that?
There's absolutely nothing principled about that, but the principle of representative democracy depends upon that.
It the principle of representative democracy depends upon representatives representing the interests of their constituencies, regardless of how radical they may be.
Okay, so um so you have their position to be the judiciary, and they're constitutionally wrong.
So we uh we need to get away the uh g uh we need to get rid of the oath of office that they take.
To right, you know, to uphold the uh constitution of the United States and instead say uh I swear to uphold the interests of the people who elect me to office.
Not at all.
But Walter, can I ask you a question on that?
Well no, well, wait Wait a minute.
I mean, let's let's not just uh throw it away there, you know.
They are I mean they have they have an obligation, if they take an oath of office.
Yes, to at uh live up to the oath of office.
They do.
They do.
But for for argument's sake, for the purposes of of representative democracy, um the members of parliament that were in any sense representing the interests of the Americans in pre-colonial times were not in any sense representing their interests, however they may have been, and that was wrong.
For us to take the same position today, I think, you know, objectively, um, you have to rely upon your your direct representative to represent your interests first.
Well, uh Well what you're saying I disagree with, but you might be describing reality much more than I am.
That is, I mean, uh I think you have to really raise the question.
That's why I don't blame politicians that much.
I blame them some.
But see, you you cannot, it's unreasonable for us to expect a politician to commit what he considers to be political suicide.
And for most politicians, they would believe it to be political suicide to live up to their oath of office to obey the United States Constitution.
Fair enough.
I'd entirely agree with you on that.
Okay, well, thanks for calling in.
And now let's go to Michael in Seattle, Washington.
Welcome to the show, Michael.
Yeah, thank you very much for taking my call.
This is pretty simple.
Um just a couple of things the the couple callers ago, you had a guy who was saying about the Supreme Court overturning slavery.
Yeah.
Of course, is uh Dred Scott, they upheld it.
It was um Abraham Lincoln who it was the emancipation declaration who declared slavery to be not slavery anymore because they he banned it with that.
Well, wait, what you uh you're wrong again.
You're wrong that that is two wrong calls.
Now, let me tell you what the emancipation proclamation said, and actually read it.
It freed the slaves.
In matter of fact, I'm gonna try to get it so I can I uh during the break.
It freed the slaves in those states that were in rebellion against the United States.
For example, uh those state their parishes in Louisiana uh in New Orleans uh that weren't in rebellion against the United States, and those slaves weren't freed.
Uh uh uh slaves in I I don't know, I think it was Maryland, and slaves in Pennsylvania.
They were not freed.
That is it was a political strategy to keep I th a lot of people would argue it was a political strategy to keep uh the European nations from coming in on the side of the South.
Now, what eliminated slavery were amendments to the Constitution, making sure yes.
But but but it did not emancipate uh uh the emancipation proclamation, it did not um emancipate slaves.
Matter of fact, I believe it was Abraham Lincoln's uh Treasury, Secretary of Treasury or Secretary of State who said that we have freed slaves where we cannot free them, and we have not freed slaves where we can.
And that's uh namely in the states that were not in rebellion against you the uh union.
I again again a principled politician.
But the uh I I I don't recall reading that, but the the other thing.
Well see, you no, no, look, you're you're talking to when you're calling this show, you have to be prepared.
I mean, it's like it's like I have read that thing and I I studied it, and that's why I'm gonna be able to do that.
Okay, look, I'll tell you I I'm not gonna have time to go to uh go to the emancipation proclamation, but I would surely uh uh Brett, if this fella calls back, I'm gonna I'm gonna give him an assignment.
Go get the emancipated proc emancipation proclamation.
You can probably get it on the web.
And then call back and I want you to read the emancipation proclamation to the audience.
Okay?
Okay.
We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
We're back, uh Walter Williams sitting in for rush, and uh I got uh brushes um crack staff, uh Kit Carson to do a little legwork for me during the break, and we have the emancipation proclamation, just so let me read it to you folks.
It's a it's a long thing, but I'm just gonna read part of it.
First, okay, that on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, that's eighteen sixty-three, for all of you went to public schools, all persons held as as slaves within any state or designated part of a state.
The people whereof shall be in uh, let me go back.
Okay, that on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against United States, shall be then, thence forward and forever free.
That is all slaves held in states in rebellion against the United States shall be free.
And he goes on to list those states in the emancipation proclamation, and they are Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, except the parishes of St. Bernard, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, and some other uh parishes who were on the side of the Union.
And then uh the other states, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, except the 48 counties designated as West Virginia.
Uh West Virginia is is uh one part of Virginia that seceded during the the Civil War.
Uh and that's it.
Now, if you happen to be a slave in Delaware or Maryland, that was just tough.
You were not free.
But uh anyway, let's try another caller from Westchester, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the show.
Hey, Dr. Williams, there's always uh an education when you fill in for rush.
Well, thank you.
Uh my comment goes back to uh something you were talking about earlier about uh the uh left's assertion that the Constitution is a living document.
Yeah.
And if that is the case, then they find themselves kind of in a catch-22 because their major issue and argument against any conservative judge always seems to be Roe v.
Wade.
And in light of the living document argument, uh Roe v.
Wade is meaningless.
Because you have cultural changes since it was uh decided, technology has changed, the voters have elected new politicians.
So I see where you go.
Yeah, right.
But but by the way, folks, uh before the Roe v.
Wade decision, there was not any fed federal statute against abortion.
It was all decided at the state level.
And I think uh that's a very, very important uh thing to uh recognize.
But uh thanks a lot for calling on the show.
Let's go to Ted in New York.
Welcome to the show, Ted.
Hey, Dr. Williams, good to talk to you.
I was calling concerning uh two or three calls back, someone called about representative democracy, and I believe the statement he made was that it is the duty of the representatives to vote as the their constituents, as the general public would vote in their place.
Is that correct?
I think something like that.
Uh what my impression was was that the purpose of of uh uh erecting a representative democracy was to escape the tyranny of the whim of the general populace and to sort of have a a shock dampening effect so that uh whatever the general public happens to think at the moment is sort of followed through the representatives,
and they would um uh uh be able to vote in the in a proper way, in a principled way, not just following whatever the General public happens to think at that moment.
Well, I I I think you're right.
And matter of fact, the framers of the Constitution and the founders at the time, they found a democracy offensive.
Matter of fact, you can read quotation after quotation, seeing that a democracy was offensive.
Because you know, that's just tyranny of the majority, as you as you suggested.
And and matter of fact, some of the framers said that a democracy is nothing uh much different, or the results of democracy, not that much different from a a monarchy.
That is uh King George.
You know, for example, and now here's why I frequently said this, and I might have said it on a show earlier, that democracy gives the aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be considered as tyranny.
Let me just throw out a few examples of this.
Suppose, you know, w some people have Turkey on Thanksgiving, and some people have ham.
Right.
Now, suppose it were up to a democratic decision-making process, and it's gonna be decided whether we wear uh you know whether we have Turkey or ham.
And we all and and and the majority votes for Turkey, which means if you have ham, you go to jail.
Right.
Now, wouldn't we consider that tyranny?
Yes.
So and so uh the the majority rules, I mean that's just plain tyranny.
Now, I believe when the when the framers talked about democracy, the the little bit that they talked about, they wanted democracy in the political process, which is supposed to be very, very limited.
That is the government having very very limited control over our lives.
They did not mean that it's going to be a democratic decision to determine whether I uh how much money is going to go out of my paycheck for retirement or whether I should be in this government uh health program.
The framers, as a matter of fact, I have on my website, Walter Williams.com, many, many statements about the framers uh showing fear for democracy.
Matter of fact, in our constitution, they have it laced with undemocratic procedures.
I mean, for example, for example, one that's under attack after the last election, they're trying to get rid of they were trying to people are criticizing the electoral college.
Well, the framers gave us the electoral college so that big states could not run rough shi highly populated states could not run roughshod over sparsely populated states.
And they you you find the constitution laced with undemocratic things.
That is, if you look at the uh the let me just go back uh we're running up against the clock, but the framers did not have much trust for for democracy, and they did not have much trust for the United States Congress.
We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
We're back in the next hour.
We'll uh we're up against the clock, but the next hour I'm gonna talk about Kafka.
We're gonna talk about the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
But let me just kind of finish up uh uh talking about uh some what you some some of you people in talking about uh in terms of democracy, uh and the framers did not intend for it to be a democracy.
Just look at a couple of simple things.
When we say, I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the democracy for which it stands, or is it republic?
Or when we sing the battle hymn of the democracy, or is it the battle hymn of the republic?
Let me just give you a couple of quotes by the framers about the uh uh about a democracy.
James Madison said, in a democracy is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.
Uh Edmund Randolph said, in tracing these evils to their origin, every man found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.
John Adams, they many, you know, these quotes just go on and on by framers.
John Adams said, remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes and exhausts and murders itself.
There was never a democracy that did not yet commit suicide.
Now those are the the ideas of our of our framers.
So we are supposed to be a republic.
Next hour we're going to talk about Kafka.
And the last hour, we're going to have Shadag, Congressman Shadag from Arizona on, to talk about some common sense in government.
▲
Export Selection