All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
August 9, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Folks, just a little tease here for what's coming after the uh Arlen Specter and Judge Roberts story.
For those of you old enough to remember, do you remember the 1960 presidential campaign John Kennedy was Catholic?
And you remember the questions that uh the Baptists and uh bunch of people asking, and saying, well, now is JFK going to be loyal to the Vatican, or is he going to be loyal to the Constitution in the U.S.?
All right, here we are, 45 years later, and it is the party of JFK, which is now asking, will Judge Roberts be loyal to the Vatican, or will he be loyal uh to uh the United States Constitution?
And it it's it's gotten so they've gotten so excited about it, they brought out Mario the Pious on the on the Sunday shows yesterday.
He was on Meet the Press with uh with Tim Russard, and we have the audio coming up.
All that in uh in due course greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Uh oh, hey, Brian, go ahead and turn on the ditto cam.
I forgot to give you the signal at the top of the hour.
We'll have it on at Rush Limbaugh.com for the uh remainder of the program today.
So Senator Specter sends a three-page letter to Judge Roberts, and he raises pointed questions about two recent court decisions invalidating legislation that Congress passed under its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
That power has for decades, and for those of you in Rio Linda, that means for ten, you know, multiples of ten.
Well, that's gonna confuse you.
Never mind.
The power has for decades been used to produce expansive legislation, including environmental protection, civil rights laws, and the Americans with disabilities act.
The current court has been trimming back that authority, however.
Democrats have vowed to make interstate commerce a big issue in Judge Roberts' hearings, and now Senator Specter, Republican, is suggesting that he shares the Democrats' concerns.
Well, what's new about that?
He's doing his best impersonation of Senator Schumer here, if you ask me.
Spector said Monday in a telephone interview from his home in uh Philadelphia, said uh I think uh he was uh he said he was particularly upset uh uh uh no wrong line.
I think Republicans have a duty to pursue this line of questioning and any relevant line of questioning.
He said he was particularly upset that the court under under Chief Justice Rehnquist had questioned lawmakers' method of reasoning in striking down laws.
Well, that's just another way of saying Congress is incompetent, Spector said.
He added, I'm not suggesting we pack the court, but at a minimum the Senate is determined to confirm new justices who respect their role.
Democrats and liberal advocacy groups caught off guard by Mr. Spector's letter were elated.
We're elated.
All right, let me let me give you just a brief explanation of this uh so that you understand what it is that Senator Spector is upset about.
There were two cases involving the Commerce Clause that the Supreme Court got right.
One was called Lopez, the other called Morrison.
Uh the court ruled that Congress did not have the constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that didn't involve commerce and were not among the several states.
Lopez, the Lopez case involved a federal law banning gun possession around schools.
There was no commerce of any kind.
The states are very capable of banning gun possession around the schools, and many of them do.
Some states are rural and possessing guns around schools, such as pickups and drive-by parents dropping off their kids at school is very common.
Uh Morrison involved a federal law against violence against women, but again, it had nothing to do with commerce.
It was duplicative of many state laws that were already on the books.
So the the commerce clause has been used by the uh by the Congress to pass all kinds of laws uh which don't apply to the commerce cause, such such as banning gun possession around schools.
I mean, they had to have something to justify the law uh and intercede on the state's rights to do this, uh, and they and they glommed onto the the commerce clause.
And the commerce clause there there's no commerce involved what whatsoever.
And the court struck that down.
So that does it's unconstitutional.
Now, this is where it gets interesting because I think Spectre is simply regurgitating Schumer's absurd view of the Supreme Court's power.
And here's where it gets contradictory.
The liberals have argued for decades that the Supreme Court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of congressional laws.
This is called judicial review, and it stems from Marbury versus Madison.
So they've picked these two cases to argue that failing to uphold these laws shows disrespect for Congress and separation of powers.
It's cockeyed, because on the contrary, in these two cases, Congress is disrespecting the Constitution itself, not the court.
It's Congress disrespecting the Constitution.
Congress passed a couple of laws invoking the Commerce Clause where there is no commerce taking place.
And the Supreme Court said there's no commerce here.
These laws are not constitutional.
Now the liberals, on the one hand, including Senator Spector, love the whole concept of judicial review.
This is why they're so hell-bent on finding out what Judge Roberts thinks about overturning precedent.
I was watching some idiot on television last year.
I was flying home last night, and I had the TV on.
It's just miserable out there on TV at night.
It's just literally miserable.
I'm channel surfing around, and I've got some ding bat.
I forget, I don't even remember the show.
But I got some dingbat uh uh talking about the the uh the the fact that we we can't we can't overturn uh oh some who was David Gregory was talking to Bork and he was trying to and this was you know, folks, this was like trying to think of battleship with Bibies, and David Gregory is time is is trying to to uh nail Bork in a corner about precedent.
Well, he's you know, we've got to worry about pre and it was all about Roe versus Wade.
Why, if he doesn't respect precedent, we can overturn Roe versus Wade.
And Bork rattled off a whole bunch of cases, Plessy versus Ferguson.
I could have added the Dred Scott decision.
If the court didn't overturn itself, if the court never reversed itself, slavery would still be legal in the United States today.
If the word of the Supreme Court were final, and the Supreme Court could never overturn itself, the Dred Scott decision would today still be active, and we would still have slavery.
So the idea, but these are uneducated, uninformed media people who think they know it all based on Roe v.
Wade.
So he's sitting there and trying to nail Bork down on this business of precedent, and Bork just casually and calmly answers the question and blows the question out of the park in a grand slam home run.
But the contradiction of this is striking, because on the one hand, the libs love judicial review, and that is when the court can say that's constitutional and that's not constitutional.
Now all of a sudden, the libs are upset about it.
When the court said you cannot pass a federal law banning handgun possession within a certain uh area around a school using the commerce clause.
There's no commerce involved here.
They tried to vaguely say, well, the gun had to be bought somewhere and the gun might have been bought out of state and brought by a resident into the state and so forth.
It just, it was it was a big reach.
There was no commerce involved in the in the actual statute, Supreme Court overturned it.
So the question to Senator Spector and Schumer and all the libs is come clean with us.
Do you believe in judicial review or not?
Do you believe that the Marbury versus Madison decision, in which the Supreme Court says it is going to alone and single-handedly determine what's constitutional and what isn't?
Or do you not?
And if you do, why are you focused only on these two cases when the court overturns congressional law all the time?
Most recently, sentencing guidelines.
The court most recently overturned sentencing guidelines.
You can't do that.
These are absurd or out of proportion.
And here's the answer.
And that's why you're here, folks.
You're here for the answer.
I ask the questions and I answer them.
That's why I don't need guests, and I don't need to go on any other show asking me questions, because I ask myself the best questions I will ever get asked, and then I answer them.
The answer is this.
Liberals, regardless of party, want the Supreme Court to uphold Congress expanding its power over us and the states, just as they want the court itself to expand its authority over us and the states.
I think the question that Spector raises needs to be answered by him.
The question that Senator Spector is going to pose to Judge Roberts needs to be answered by him.
Which is it, Senator?
Do you support judicial review or not?
Do you think the court should overturn what they think is unconstitutional or should they not?
Yes or no.
If you think they shouldn't, then uh Roe v.
Wade is safe, and you have no business complaining about these two cases, Lopez or Morrison.
If you think that the concept of judicial review is the court grasping and uh and holding too much power, you should tell us that you think that.
But to put the onus here on Judge Roberts, who hasn't said anything about this other than his his uh responses on questionnaires about precedent and its value.
I mean, I I I just it is just folks, that this this is cock-eyed.
It is purely cock-eyed, and it illustrates the obscene sense of power these senators think that they have.
But what it all adds up to is this, and make no mistake about it, when we're talking about a liberal, I don't care if it's a liberal activist or a liberal senator or a liberal judge, they believe in every institution of government getting as big as it can at the expense of your liberty and mine.
Pure and simple, no other way to analyze it.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
Great to have you.
It's Rush Limbaugh, this, the excellence in broadcasting network.
A nation's leading and most influential radio talk show a program envied and copied by many but never equaled, Rob in Salt Lake City.
Hello, sir, you're next.
Hi, Rush.
Good talk to you.
Thank you.
Uh my question is, you just made the statement that liberals want government to grow, government agencies to get bigger at the expense of our liberty.
Yes.
Which I agree with.
My question is, why then don't they favor the Patriot Act?
Oh, that's an excellent question.
What do you think the answer to your own question is?
Do you have any idea before I tell you what I think?
I would think because it was Bush's idea.
Uh no, not so much, although that's part of it.
But the Patriot Act.
See, if you if you look at the left, the Patriot Act basically is an act that gives the federal government power to um accuse or suspect people on the basis of behavior.
And the left doesn't want to be judged in any way, shape, manner, or form.
They think they'll come up short, I suppose.
But they simply they simply reject.
There's one area though of government that Libs do not want to empower and get bigger, and that's law enforcement.
Um they're just they're just they're hell bent against that.
Uh look at the ACLU, the the the evidence is is all over the place.
It doesn't want law enforcement to get any more powerful than it is.
Um, you know, there are exceptions to everything, but this because it's primarily oriented in behavior, uh, they just they they they it scares them.
They don't want to go there at all.
And also profiling.
Uh also what?
Profiling.
Profiling.
Well, profiling is basically uh it it's a combination of appearance and uh and uh and behavior.
But about profiling, you know.
The Brits, the Brits are beginning to the Brits are gonna deport people who who who talk about uh hating Britain, England.
They're they're they're they're they're fed up with it after just two attacks now.
They're fed up with it.
I'll get to the stories here in the stacks uh in in due course to give you the details of this.
We would have a little bit more of a problem doing what the Brits are going to do.
And so they don't have a First Amendment which grants everybody the right to free speech.
We do.
You can burn the flag, you can you can you can rip your country, you can you can do you can rip the president, you can you can write books in this country about how to assassinate the president if he's George W. Bush.
And there's really nothing anybody can do other than engage in public condemnation.
But when it comes to profiling, the opposition to this to me is simply absurd.
It is simply absurd.
Common sense and for forget the profiling issue.
The way to go about this is statistics.
Forget profiling at all.
The left is gonna say, you can't judge people in the base of skin color.
You can't judge people because of the way they wear their clothes.
You can't judge people.
Fine, okay, we're not gonna do that.
We're gonna base it on statistics.
We know that a hundred percent of the 9-11 hijackers and terrorists were Arab.
Well, we got a pretty good idea then who they are.
We know that also other terrorist attacks around the country are being committed by 90, 100% Muslims, what have you.
So we if you go with statistics here and don't call it profiling, you can't po it would be absurd to ignore them.
Even though people well, I should massage statistics any way you want.
Yeah, I know.
100% is 100%.
Massage it all you want.
But I think when it comes to the Patriot Act, it is it is an it's uh it's an overwrought fear of the Justice Department, the FBI, uh uh all of these things are uh wrapped up into it, but it all centers, I think, around behavior.
The left just doesn't want to be criticized, they don't want to be held accountable, they don't want any judgmentalism on their behavior.
Uh and any government that gets in the way of that, yeah, they're gonna hear from it.
Other than that, the power to tax, uh, the power to redistribute wealth, uh, all of these things.
You know, there are a couple things about government the left doesn't like, the use of the military uh and that sort of thing.
But uh, as I say, there are exceptions to everything.
But for the most part, it's oriented around behavior.
Byron and Pearlin, Texas.
You're next.
Hello, sir.
Let's start it as Rush.
Thank you.
Uh my question's concerning the upcoming race between Perot and Hillary.
I want to I wanna what's your feet if you think uh this race will put Hillary back farther to the left.
Not likely because the those the the the as I mentioned at the top of the program, Janine uh Janine Pyrrhow's uh cultural issues pretty much dovetail with Hillary's.
Uh Janine Pyrrhow's pro-choice.
She's uh pro-gun control.
Uh she she's she's not going to differ from Hillary much, except when you get to the fiscal issues.
When you get to the fiscal issues, she is anti-tax, she is anti-big government, uh, she's pro-free market and so forth, and she really, as a D, she's tough on crime.
Uh and of course, we know the Libs are not tough on crime.
They're not they're not tough on terrorists, they're not tough on crime anywhere.
Uh in fact, when crime happens, they want to find a way to blame Americans or blame the country or blame society or what have you.
So I don't think that a a a Janine Pyrrhow Hillary Clinton race will cause Hillary a problem in terms of her effort to move to the right, because Hillary's trying to move to the right on these cultural things, or she's trying to put forth the illusion of moving to the right on the uh on the cultural issues.
Now, to the to that extent, I mean, I mean, Janine Pyrrho could say, this is phony, this is not who she is, she doesn't believe this, and she's just doing this to facilitate her run for the presidency.
You know, I I think I I happen to think that that Hillary is placed in a much bigger bind as a virtue of Janine Pyrrhow running than any of the so-called smart money pundits are saying right now.
They're saying it's no big deal because who's ever heard of Janine Pyrrho?
And they're also saying it's no big deal because of her husband Al and his uh his time in a federal penitentiary.
And they're saying it doesn't care, we don't care how close she gets, we're gonna nail her with her husband, and we're gonna forget that Hillary was married to Bill.
It'll be Janine Pyrrho versus Hillary Rodham in the mainstream press, not Hillary Clinton.
Uh and you know, Janine, Janine Pyrrho's maiden name is Ferris, I think.
Janine Ferris Pyrrho is how she used to be billed on TV.
She dropped that now, just Janine Pyrrhow.
I don't know if Ferris is her maiden name or middle name, but uh regardless, it'll be Janine Pyrrhow versus Hillary Rodham.
That's how that's how the press in New York will cover it.
But they're gonna get smoked again, folks.
I I have I I have confidence in this.
Uh I I'm I'm I just don't believe in the mainstream press's ability, including in New York Times to control the agenda anymore.
And I don't think any of you should either.
That's why I get so uh impatient with people who constantly hit me like when I go to Connecticut, then what about Hillary?
Then what about Hillary?
I'm really worried about Hillary.
She's so smart, she's so crafty.
And the women, the 30 to 40 year old women of America, didn't love Hillary, she did the goddess.
Okay, that's 30 to 40 year olds.
Fine, we can handle it.
I keep telling them, you don't know what negative turnout is until she runs.
For all the 30 and 40-year-old women that love her, there are probably just as many that don't.
And let's talk about the men.
Uh, you know, you look at Hillary Clinton, you see your first and second wives.
Folks.
And then you see Nurse Ratchet when you get committed to the to the to the to the the old folks home.
Uh uh I just I I'm not sitting here just wringing my hands, going, oh no, oh no, what are we doing?
What are we doing?
But Hillary, oh no, all it's lost.
Uh quite the contrary.
And I I have never met uh Janine Pyrrho, so I I don't want to be misunderstood here.
I've watched her on television, you know, these chat shows, and I played a couple sound bites from her earlier today on television today, and uh, you know, she's just powerful.
She is passionate, she's well spoken, she's articulate.
And I'll tell you something else that comes across.
And I don't mean this as a negative, and I don't mean it in a male female.
She's tough.
What did I leave out, Mr. Snerdley?
She was she's pretty.
She's pretty.
I'm trying to leave that out of it, Mr. Sturdley, because I don't want to be accused of not saying something by not saying it.
You know.
Back in a moment.
Oh, yeah.
B. Rush Limbo, off and running halfway through the fastest three hours in media.
You believe it?
Here it is, it's already Tuesday.
Of course, I'm sure this feels like Thursday to you people since I wasn't here yesterday.
The day without this program is like a 48-hour day, but we're here.
Great to be back.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
You know, it's interesting, as I mentioned uh mere moments ago, when John Kennedy was running for president, some of you not old enough to remember it, but because it was 1960.
But when he was running for president, his Catholicism was questioned.
It just it's a fascinating case study in how the left recycles its playbook.
Or another way of saying it would be it's a case study in how history replays.
Because in 1960, during the presidential campaign, everybody was worried about whether Kennedy would be loyal to the Vatican or to the U.S. Constitution.
And this was said by other religious people, by the way.
Uh and there were some Southerners, by the way, some Southern Democrats are also pretty concerned about this, as well.
Well, something happened.
Kennedy was elected, of course, and uh he established his loyalty to the United States and not the Vatican.
And second, the second thing that happened was liberals were laughing out there that those Baptists and whoever were so weird they questioned a Catholic for being a Catholic.
But it was a watershed moment, if you will, because it was the first time a Catholic had been elected president, and people were concerned.
Well, as uh as Senator Kennedy uh shouted recently, ho!
Hello, here we are 40 years later, and now it's the liberals who are doing what they mocked 40 years ago.
Now it is the liberals who are questioning fealty to the Constitution over fealty to the Vatican.
And this is about Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts is a Catholic, and the left's out there planting little seeds, hoping they will sprout into giant weeds and flowers of doubt.
Hey, this guy's a Catholic.
And by the way, this is not the first.
Um it all you have to do to really make Senator Schumer mad is to st is to accuse him of attacking a nominee's religion.
Uh most uh most powerfully you can do this by suggesting he attacks a Catholic.
You know what Bill Pryor.
Uh Bill Pryor from Alabama, the attorney general, one of the nominees of President Bush to sit on the appellate court system.
And uh one day uh it was learned that Judge uh Pryor decided not to take his uh family to Disney World or what is it down in Orlando?
Is it Disney World in Orlando?
Yeah.
Disney World because uh the date he had planned to take them was gay day.
So I'll go another day.
Well, the Democrats on the committee, you have bigot tendencies.
Don't you?
You are a homophobe, and you all of this comes from your religion.
Well, they didn't say that.
But when Senator Schumer says his deeply held personal beliefs, what else is he talking about?
Deeply held personal beliefs, and so now, and it's back here again with Judge Roberts.
He too is a Catholic.
And the very people who poo-pooed this whole notion of questioning loyalty to the Vatican or the U.S. Constitution are now themselves back doing just that.
They even dragged out Mr. Summer replacement yesterday, Mario the Pious, uh on well, not yet.
See, it's it's yesterday to me, Sunday, two days ago, Mario the Pious, former governor of uh New York was on Meet the Press.
I'm gonna go back into the archives of this program because Back in the early days, whenever uh you know, uh Governor Cuomo had his uh radio talk show, he was the first uh antidote to me that the Libs put up there.
Well, no, he's second, right?
Jim Hightower was first.
I forget which of those two.
Hightower was first, uh, and then it was Governor Cuomo doing a two-hour show on Saturday morning, was supposed to wipe the floor with me.
Uh but we had this, we have this theme song uh introduce uh things in which Governor Cuomo was going to appear.
Uh because Governor Cuomo has this uh ability to exude a self-image of one who has total ability to mesmerize people, and it stems from his 90 eight 1984 Democrat uh convention speech, where they said there was a speech of all time.
He lived off that speech for quite a while.
Our theme song was screaming Jay Hawkins, folks.
Pops those peas.
Yes, and that's why we chose them because Governor Cuomo owns you in his own mind when he is speaking.
So let's go to the audio sound bites of Mario the Pious on uh on Meet the Press on Sunday.
The uh the first question that Tim Russers, well, not the first question, one of the questions of Mario the Pious.
What is relevant in a Supreme Court nominee?
Listen to this answer.
I don't think that uh there's any question, but that religion is very relevant now, more relevant than it has been for a long time.
Religion is is an important subject in this country, it has been from the beginning, but now, especially in recent years, thanks to Republican conservatives pushing it on government, and a president who, for example, makes a faith-based judgment on stem cells, is very strong on abortion on the grounds that any abortion, even to save the life of the mother is murder.
Uh religion is a very important subject.
They don't say that.
But nevertheless, and here's here's Mario the Pious, who has spoken at Notre Dame and has spoken of his religion and how devout he is and how important it is to him.
But of course, when he's asked about this is, well, my religious beliefs are mine, and I don't believe in imposing them on everyone else.
Well, he certainly does believe that and did believe it about opposing his political views on everybody else.
Well, why can't you impose your religious views on anybody?
Well, impose, share, be affected by what good are your deeply held personal beliefs if they do not animate your uh acts as a public figure or as a human being or is it what good is being religious if it has no meaning to you?
What good is it?
It's just well, it probably is of no use to you.
It's simply therefore a front.
It's simply a mask.
Look at me, I'm a religious guy, therefore I'm moral and all this.
But when it comes to matters of morality and real what my religious beliefs are irrelevant because they're mine.
Well, what good are they then?
But the point is, 40 years ago, this is what was happening to JFK.
Now it's happening to John Roberts.
The same people who decried those 40 years ago who asked this question are now themselves asking the same question, and who'd they go get Mario the Pious to come out and lead the charge as a summer replacement?
Because it's tough to get guests in August uh on Meet the Press.
Uh uh Mario the Pious then added this after saying his uh comments after uttering his comments on abortion.
Judge Scalia.
Now, there's a Republican conservative, if there ever was one on the bench, Judge Scalia dealt with this tangentially, but he dealt with it on the subject of the death penalty.
He uh said judges, Catholic judges may be bothered in their conscience in voting for the death penalty because the Pope has said that it is evil.
He said, under those circumstances, the Catholic judge should resign.
There is no question it's relevant.
Everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges.
So why not ask them?
Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution?
Well, you start by saying, I'm not gonna support the Constitution if my Pope tells me not to.
This is unbelievable.
Folks, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
This is not going to appeal to people.
And why is it that only Catholics are opposed to abortion?
I know a lot of people who are who are uh Protestants uh who are opposed to abortion too.
Why are they simply nailing in and zeroing in on Catholics here?
Have you noticed that?
In this case, it's because Judge Roberts is Catholic, but it's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The very same people who got angry when these questions were asked of Senator, then Senator Kennedy, JFK, are now themselves asking the very same questions.
It is an amazing see how valuable their playbook is to them.
Uh I wanted you to hear this because they are scared.
They are deathly afraid, and this too is all about abortion and life.
And they are so tied, these feminist extremists on this issue.
Is the link to these mad extremist nahrol type abortion activists?
And it's going to tug them down even further into the quicksand than they already are on their own.
And of course, you you take a look at the Senator Kerry.
Now, Senator Kerry was Catholic.
Now, when you get these questions about him, during the presidential campaign, do we get these questions from the from the Democrats?
Do we get these questions about Senator Kerry?
No, we didn't get these questions about the Senator Kerr.
We didn't worry about whether he was going to be uh loyal to the Vatican or not.
And why not, I wonder.
Come on, folks, come on.
Why didn't we?
Why didn't we get these questions?
Senator Kerry, if you become the Republicans didn't raise the question.
They didn't ask it that way.
This, are you going to be loyal to the Vatican?
Or as Mario the Pious says, are you going to do what your Pope tells you to do?
Or are you going to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution?
Because Senator Kerry had long ago told a Pope where to go.
And he was only, you know, he he put on the military uniform again 30 years later, trying to hide his liberalism behind it.
And he also took it took a shot at uh at uh uh hiding his liberalism behind Catholicism, but he got all crossed up.
He keep kept contradicting himself because it was not genuine.
It's all for show on the left, folks.
The stuff that's genuine they hide.
They can't dare show us because they would finish even worse than they do.
Back after this, stay with us.
By the way, I'd like to read something here, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh uh Mario the Pious, as we just aired uh on our soundbite from uh Sundays Meets the Press with uh with uh Tim Russert.
He said everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges, so why not ask them, will you judge apply a religious test to the Constitution?
Will you start by saying I'm uh not going to support the Constitution if my Pope tells me not to?
May I read to you from Article 6, the Constitution.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Right there it is in Article 6 of the Constitution.
So if some pack of senators on the Judiciary Committee decides to take Mario Cuomo's advice here and start asking uh Judge Roberts about whether or not he will apply a religious test to the Constitution, whether he'll do what his Pope says or do what the Constitution says.
The uh well, they were the left, then the Mario was one of their candidates at one point.
Uh in fact, Clinton was thinking of putting him there to get him out of the way.
Remember that way back in the in the mid-90s, they were they those two they they locked heads uh at it because if you go back to the early Clinton governor days with Jennifer Flowers, he's he's uh heard on tape telling Jennifer Flowers that Cuomo's like the mafia and so forth, and uh there was some strain between those two, and some thought that he'd put him on the court just to get rid of him.
Uh from because once you put him on a court, you can't go make public speeches and get in the way.
Uh never happened.
But it's right here in Article 6.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust of the U.S. All Judge Roberts would have to do is cite Article 6 if some senator picks up the uh suggestion here from Governor Cuomo.
Alan in Richmond, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, Russia megados from the evangelical Christian land in Richmond, Virginia.
Thank you, sir.
I'm just I'm I'm continually offended by the Democrats who have no morality yet seek to judge mine on a daily basis, as well as our Catholic friends who may be appointed to judge ships, who hopefully will be appointed to judge ships.
And the Article 6 pointed is just wonderful.
That's just classic.
How do people who just only care about themselves say any morality for anybody?
It just blows my mind.
Well, look at as long as there's a moral standard, there are going to be people that fail it.
And so the only way to fail and not fail a moral standard is ever not be one.
And you and you can and you can get rid of the moral standard by by by condemning and criticizing anybody who's judgmental and saying you don't have the right to impose your morality on me.
Who are you to define morality?
Morality is not an individual choice.
Yeah, I guess you're right.
If if Clinton would appoint uh Uncle Mario over there on the basis of, you know, him being a mobster, that that shows the morality the level of morality of the point of the city.
It wouldn't have been on that basis now.
He would he wouldn't have appointed Mario on the basis he's a mobster.
Don't don't read that.
He would have appointed Mario to the court to shut him up.
So he couldn't run around out there criticizing Clinton if he felt the need to.
Or so he couldn't harass the Democratic Party and try to wrest control.
Don't forget Cuomo's son was out there too.
You know, don't forget Andrew, and it was Bill Clinton who uh you know called Andrew Cuomo up when Andrew, what was Andrew running for governor of New York, the nomination he was running for the Democrat nomination, and uh uh I forget what it was, but but Clinton Clinton called Andrew and say, hey, hey Andrew, how are you doing?
You ever heard of good uh good of the party?
You ain't it, pal.
Did you you remember Bob Torcelli?
Right?
Let me show you what Bob signed.
It's it's real easy.
He just signed this, and we'll never say another word about you, pal, and you'd be good for your party this way.
I mean, it was arguably Clinton who um who ditched Andrew Cuomo from the pol from the you know political hierarchy of the uh Democratic Party after Andrew had served loyally in Clinton's administration as uh Secretary.
Yeah, it was HUD secretary, housing and uh and urban development.
I tell you that that that bunch of people over there, I uh on the left, uh loyalty is is a strange, has a strange definition to it.
But I'm just I'm just telling you out there, uh Alan that he would have put it he put a Cuomo on the court, not because he was a mobster, and I didn't say this.
I can just see this now.
The headlines tomorrow, Limbaugh.
Uh Cuomo a mobster.
It was Clinton who implied that on a Jennifer Flowers tapes back in the 90s, late 80s, whenever he was uh he was dating her.
And and and there was always friction between these two.
They all publicly uh hey, I never said it, Mario.
I never said it.
And she you know, just a lion BIH, you know how those people are.
And Mario publicly accepted the apology, but there was always the friction uh out there.
But as to your point about about morality, I mean, the the that's a big problem for the for a lot of liberals.
I mean, because they just don't want there to be any.
Judgmentalism, whose right is it?
And uh that that's why all this value stuff bothers them.
That's why they that's why they keep talking about they lost on values in the red states in a 2004 election.
They gotta go in there and say we two have value.
Listen to Howard Dean define morality.
Howard Dean defines morality as we won't send troops to Iraq.
We won't lie about weapons of mass destruction.
He will not talk about morality in the sense that everybody else discusses it in terms of public and private behavior.
Um, what is the old somebody I forget who it was.
It was um anyway, uh the name will come to me.
Uh but they said um morality is doing the right thing when oh, it's J.C. Watts.
Morality is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.
A quick time out, we'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Uh basically what's happening here, folks, is that the um the libs uh are trying to create tests that would disqualify conservatives from public office.
That's essentially what they're trying to do with all this religion stuff uh and uh the the adoption, all these other things that they're going after Roberts with.
There's also on an unrelated story, great one today, New York Times proving, documenting, establishing that I was right in describing to you the ineffective way that the Clinton administration and Jamie Gorellick came up with laws that prevented us from effectively fighting terrorism.
▲
Export Selection