All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
September 13, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hey, folks, greetings and welcome.
Nice to have you back as we head on down to three more hours of broadcast excellence here on the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's a thrill.
It's a delight to have you with us today.
Telephone number.
You want to be on the program 800-282-288-2 and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
We're going to be talking about the first day of questioning of Judge John Roberts today.
We have audio soundbite.
Some of the highlights from things that have occurred this morning.
There aren't a whole lot.
There are a couple of interesting things.
The energy...
Now this is unprecedented.
I don't this seems to me.
It's been 19 years.
Or it's been, no, since 1992, but 13 years since we had a hearing on this on a Supreme Court justice, whatever.
The hearings are going on.
Judge Roberts is answering questions at this very moment.
Ted Kennedy has left the room and is now appearing on CNN, analyzing while Roberts is answering questions.
One of the highlights we have is a Senator Kennedy question.
We will get to it.
I'm I my memory, I'm going to have to go back and check, but to have a member of the committee on television, he's on CNN right now, actually analyzing what's going on and explaining his questioning while another senator is questioning Judge Roberts.
Shouldn't Senator Kennedy be in the hearing room?
So I don't think this thing has nearly the energy the Democrats hope for, folks, to tell you the truth.
You know what's obvious?
I I I mentioned yesterday that it it this guy is gonna is gonna skunk the room just in terms of intellect.
And when you get to Senator Leahy and Senator Kennedy, uh in fact many of the senators, they're sitting there reading prepared question forms, no doubt prepared for them by their staff.
Roberts doesn't appear to even have any notes in front of him like he didn't yesterday when he gave that very eloquent opening statement, which I thought was was excellent.
I I was I was uh as impressed by that as as more pressed than I thought I would be.
It exceeded expectations.
But it is clear that uh this guy can run rings around these these senators are pr pretend lawyers, pretend judicial scholars, and they're actually talking to a judicial scholar here, uh trying to trip him up.
And it's clear what the strategy is.
He's employing the Ginsburg rule without citing it.
He will not answer specific questions about rulings on specific cases, nor hypothetical questions uh that might involve specific cases down the road.
Uh he has uh taken a different tack than Judge Bork took on the right to privacy.
He's acknowledged that there is one that uh you can infer from the Constitution based on the last 40 years of rulings, uh big discussion of starry diseases uh with uh with Senator Spector.
Senator Spector let off the questioning uh 98% of which was uh solely due to Roe vs.
Wade and uh and abortion.
Senator Kennedy led off with Katrina and its aftermath and the voting rights act.
Uh and you will you hear the soundbite from this, and it'd be easier to just play that than try to explain to you uh what happened.
So we uh we have some highlights of it all coming up, but I just don't think that the uh the Democrats are getting the energy out of this that they uh that they hope to get.
Some of that probably due to the hurricane, uh sapping everybody's um emotional energy, but uh it is clear they're dealing here with somebody who um they're not gonna be able to trip up.
And uh it it's I I think what everybody is saying is probably true that the purpose of these hearings for the Democrats will be to lay down markers for the next choice uh and to establish areas they can delve into and and go into, but Judge Roberts is uh uh never takes his eyes off the senator who asked him the question when he's answering the question.
He doesn't have to refer to notes.
He corrected Senator Kennedy when Senator Kennedy misquoted him and took his uh took a uh a portion of a memo he had written out of context.
Senator Kennedy, clearly not interested in an answer at that point, tried to just buffalo Judge Roberts uh and Arlen Spector, the chairman butted in and said, hey, you asked a long question, let him answer it.
Spector had to do that twice to Senator Kennedy.
Uh So you have here it's an amazing thing.
You have all these senators, these blowhards, and you have all their staff behind them.
You've got the senators who have their staff who write the questions, who write their positions, who write their statements, and then you've got one judge with one brain with no notes, outdoeling them all.
It's a bunch of pseudo-judicial scholars up against a legitimate one, and the uh the unfairness and the imbalance is obvious.
There are also additional stories coming out of New Orleans that uh uh and the Hurricane Katrina aftermath that we cannot ignore, and we will not ignore an overview of some of those stories.
Greyhound Bus is complaining about the name they've given to the New Orleans jail.
As you know, the uh the Louise in a prisons department has uh set up a temporary jail in a Greyhound bus depot, and they're calling it Camp Greyhound.
And Greyhound is upset about this.
They complain to the prisons department to stop referring to the temporary jail that was once the bus station is Camp Greyhound.
Uh Ray Nagan, the mayor, who has moved to Texas.
He's he's he's totally left town.
Mayor Negan is left town set uh set up stakes in in, I think Dallas, where his kids are enrolled in school, uh says the city is bankrupt and uh the they need help.
George Will has a uh uh a great piece today on a on a theme that I have been advancing here for the uh past couple of days, and that is what is this aftermath really showing us?
What is it really illustrating?
And one of the things that it's illustrating and trumpeting is the abject failure of the war on poverty.
And this column has an updated figure on the amount of money we have spent in this country on poverty since the uh the war on poverty and the Great Society began.
It's up to six point six trillion dollars since 1964, and yet we still have the uh uh uh the the all that money spent, we still have same percentages of people uh in poverty.
It's the most expensive war we've ever fought, 6.6 trillion dollars.
It's the longest war we've ever fought, 40 years, and uh it's about time that we question the plan here.
This is a war in poverty, it's what it's been called, and we we don't have an exit strategy, we need to have an exit strategy, and we need to examine the plan and whoever put this plan together.
Here come the first of the predictable stories.
Donations not getting through to crisis pregnancy centers in the Gulf area.
Planned Parenthood is offering abortion to rape victims.
Because the money is not getting through.
So Planned Parenthood's contribution and donation to this is offering abortions to rape victims.
Meanwhile, the Boston Globe has a story that that uh basically thin or reports that a bunch of sociologists think that all this looting and mayhem that was reported really didn't take place, and that there um there are there are plenty of people running around saying there's no evidence that any rapes took place anywhere.
Uh and this is based on a statistical analysis of previous disasters.
So we got a lot of ground to cover today.
Uh and there's a whole lot more having a chance to get to, but we will, as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears, so sit tight, be cool, be patient.
We'll be back and roll right on right after this.
I got a hurricane alert to announce here, Washington, D.C. Senator Biden has just begun his questioning of uh Judge Roberts.
And if past history is uh is uh any indication, Senator Biden's first question will take up his entire allotted time and not allow Judge Roberts any time to answer.
Uh he'll have at least a 10 to 15 minute question here if he's uh if he if he is true to form.
So uh folks, I have to say I last night.
I'm sitting, I'm watching the ESPN pregame show, getting ready to the uh Monday night football football game between the Philadelphia Eagles, the Atlantis Falcons.
I'm watching this, and I got some email uh and and instant message uh action going back and forth with some people.
And I I happen to glance right, which what I have to do, I've turned right from my computer screen to see the TV.
And I noticed all hell breaking loose about 40 minutes before the game started.
And ESPN's blown their format and they're going live coverage, what's happening on the field.
And there's a big fight that's broken out.
So I I'm I'm watching this and ESPN, of course, going nuts trying to figure out what it all happened and who started it and uh uh replays and so forth.
So if you figured out what happened was that Jeremiah Trotter, the middle linebacker for the Eagles, got into a shoving match with uh the fifth man, the nickel by the dime back actually for the uh Falcons, Kevin Mathis, and they both ended up being thrown out of the game.
But what was funny is the ref threw a flag 40 minutes before the game, there's this giant brawl, and the referee is trying to stop them, and what nobody has said is the referee was between these two guys for about 10 seconds or longer before they threw punches.
Something was going on a long time before we saw what had actually happened by the time the cameras caught up to it.
But in the middle of this brawl, the ref throws a flag.
And then after they threw the flag, they went to the replay to look at the replay of the brawl to make sure that they were taking the right action.
This is 40 minutes before the game started.
I loved it.
I haven't seen anything like this in my life watching football.
Here's a here's a referee between two guys in a warmups.
This is the warmups, the stadium's not even full, throwing a flag in the middle of a brawl, then checking instant replay.
Anyway, the two players were ejected.
The Eagles were harmed most by that because they lost their starting linebacker.
Uh but well, I I don't know, but I'll tell you, you here's the Eagles didn't play well last night, and everybody Philadelphia knows this.
They weren't focused.
They had they had some um had some problems.
But this was supposed to be Terrell Owens' night.
Terrell Owens lives in Atlanta, by the way, in the offseason.
It's supposed to be his night.
And I will, I just wonder if Terrell Owens not upset because the fight broke out, stole a thunder from what was to be his night.
Because he did not, I mean, he had seven catches for 112 yards, but it was not an inspired second half performance.
He wasn't even turning around looking for Donovan McNabb passes.
Uh I don't know.
It was it was strange.
Well, it was just it was it was it was funny.
The whole pregame scenario here was just funny.
Uh I've never seen a flag thrown in a fight before the game, and I've never seen them.
Oh, no, they the NF, because last year, Joey Porter, the Steelers, and William Green of the Browns started throwing punches an hour before the game and a leaks.
Okay, you guys are good.
They're punches thrown, you guys are kicked out.
Since that game, I think it may be preceded that game, but since that game, officials are on the field 45 to minutes to an hour before the game, monitoring conduct.
And I think this has it also has roots in what happened in New Fallujah, you know, with the with the uh with the Pacers and the Pistons.
Uh Ron Artest and the boys.
So the officials, they're there.
That's what struck me.
They're on the field refereeing the warmups.
They have to officiate the warmups.
You had a commissioner on the sideline watching the whole thing.
Tags, Paul Taglia boo.
And then uh the the they went to the coach said, okay, you've lost Trotter and Andy Reed went to the refs and try to return it and overturn the decision.
That's when they went to the instant replay of the warmups.
And then the Eagles, the Eagles, who were not going to be dissed, went to the Falcons logo in the 50-yard line and started doing their dance, their team dance, and the Falcons said, you can you are going to diss us in our home.
So they went out there and met them on the 50-yard line.
They both started doing pregame dances.
At that time, there weren't any more flags thrown, but the uh the coaches had to go out there and separate things.
It's uh you know, it's a friend of mine said last night, it's amazing these coaches and referees are able to keep control of these guys uh in in a game anyway.
I mean, they're all padded up, they're they're behemoths.
Uh it's uh But I just I had to laugh.
Folks, if you if you just landed here from Mars and you turned on television and you were watching the confirmation hearings of John Roberts, you uh you wouldn't understand it.
Because if you listen to the questions that came from Democrats and some of the statements that they made yesterday, their opening statements, you find that Congress wants the Supreme Court to make law, and they also want to stop the Supreme Court from overruling Congress.
This is how convoluted the Democrats' position has become.
The Democrats, because you know, this term judicial activism, judicial activism is a term that the we on the right have now apparently successfully used to describe the kind of judicial activity and temperament that liberals want.
They want judges to use their personal policy preferences in deciding law.
They want them to ignore the law and use their own personal policy preferences.
We can tell you, judicial activism is all about getting liberal judges on the courts to institutionalize liberalism and therefore insulate it from the arena of debate, the arena of ideas and legislative debate.
But at the same time, uh judicial review enters the picture because at the same time they want this activism, they also want these same judges never to overturn congressional action or congressional laws.
And so they have this dichotomy.
So they've had to, they've had, or dilemma actually, they've had to redefine what judicial activism is.
Uh and and their judicial activism now, according to the left, is when a judge overturns the will of Congress.
That that's that's how they're getting around this.
It's it's it's it's it's just convoluted.
The point is they are on the run.
And it's a it to me it's uh it's an indication of victory that the term judicial activism has hit home and it is harming them, and so they've had to s it in their own manner change the definition, and it has shown up in the hearings here.
And if you just landed from Mars, you would you would swear these guys are contradicting themselves that Democrats are uh in their opening statements and questions, which which there are uh a lot of contradictions.
As I want to illustrate, I was I've uh mentioned again, I'm watching Ted Kennedy question John Rot Judge Roberts, and it was just I know Senator Kennedy's getting old, and I know happy hours still you know five hours away.
Uh but i i it it was in my mind it was pathetic.
I mean, I'm watching Ted Kennedy read and interrupt, and I realize with the pictures that I see, each inquisitor, i.e.
senator, has his or her huge staff, his or her research people, his or her statement and note-takers and writers, and his or her special interest group.
You you multiply that times the number of senators there are on the committee.
On the other side of the table, you have Judge Roberts, who just sits there, one man, one brain, one memory bank.
But the thing that's that's funny is it's it's it's it's a fair contest.
Judge Roberts' one brain is an equal match to all the brains of all the senators and all their staff and all their special interest groups and all the note takers and all the writers that they have.
That's one of the things that has struck me today as how uh it's not a matter of of Judge Roberts being prepared.
It it it it doesn't give him enough credit to say he's prepared.
Uh he is who he is.
He's is it I don't think the man probably had to study much at all, probably didn't cram at all for these hearings.
He is who he is.
He can show up and give a statement without notes, he can answer these questions without notes and without taking his eyes off people.
He knows his stuff.
He has studied a little bit every day of his life, or a lot, so he hasn't had to cram.
He hasn't had to bone up.
He hasn't had a lot of coaching, and probably hasn't needed a lot of coaching.
And we have, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six.
We got eight bytes from the uh hearings that started this morning.
Uh the most recent one was just a dandy.
It happened right before the program started, a question that Senator Grassley asked uh about the role of judges in making law to right social wrongs.
And it was just an absolutely brilliant answer.
And it was shortly after that answer that Senator Kennedy showed up on CNN while Senator Grassley was still questioning Judge Roberts, and Judge Roberts was still answering questions.
Now you have to wonder if that timing is uh is coincidental.
Did CNN make the deal with Ted Kennedy to show up immediately after his remarks and after the press conference between the new Iraqi president and President Bush at the White House come up to the go up to the CNN booth wherever it is, and so we'll get you in here, Senator talking about the hearings while the hearings are still going on.
While Judge Roberts is still answering questions posed by a Republican senator, Ted Kennedy is on CNN, and I couldn't hear it because the program was on, but I'll guarantee you he was expanding on the points he was trying to make questioning Judge Roberts since he bombed out in real time.
A question.
If Senator Kennedy isn't going to sit in on the hearings, why should we?
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Another profundity from your gallant host, L. Rushmo.
Some fireworks here during the most recent break.
Senator Biden actually asked a question with time remaining for Judge Roberts to answer it.
And one of the one of the things the Democrats are trying to chip away here at the Ginsburg defense.
The Democrats are trying to get Roberts to say, wait a minute, Judge Ginsburg did answer some specific questions.
And and and Biden tried to give uh Roberts an example of uh of of where uh Ginsburg did answer specific questions.
She did in one instance, and that is when a case was settled and decided, and she was asked, do you agree with the outcome or not?
Roberts said, I have read the transcript of those hearings.
And she said, and there's a there's a three-phrase answer that Ginsburg gave, but uh don't recall at the moment.
And at that point Biden interrupted him, and Spector came to the rescue and said, Look at your answering asking him questions, let him answer them.
And Biden said, Well, he's filibustering, he's filibustering.
And then the place broke up laughing because Roberts hadn't been speaking longer than 15 seconds.
Uh so but but they're they're trying to chip away their folks, they just they're doing everything they can to trip him up and make sure that he answers specific questions about future cases.
Uh and even got to the point now of arguing with him about whether or not Ginsburg did or didn't do that.
All right, let's go to the audio sound bites just from things that have happened this morning.
This is uh Arlan Spector's question.
He said, Judge Robertson, your confirmation hearing for the circuit court, your testimony read to the effect has been widely quoted, Roe is the settled law of the land.
You mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?
Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court, uh entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.
And those principles applied in the Casey case, uh explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not.
And uh it is it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.
Uh, so this is this is Spectre's said I'm not I'm not gonna ask you for your opinion on Roe v.
Wade.
And he got as close to asking that opinion without specifically doing so as he could.
Uh this answer uh uh caused many liberals and moderates to breathe a sigh of relief.
Okay.
So he says it settled his precedent.
We're gonna interpret that as meaning he would not vote to overturn Roe versus Wade.
On the other hand, some conservatives say, oh no, he just said he's not gonna overturn Roe versus Wade.
I think both sides are uh jumping uh to conclusions.
I don't think he said anything of the sort.
I think it's uh to me it's obvious what Roberts is doing.
Uh he's not gonna answer any specific questions, and he knows this is simply one of the processes he has to go through to get to the court.
And he and and so you say what you have to say here.
Uh, like when he was asked about the right to privacy.
It'd be an absolutely idiotic thing to say.
No, I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution.
That that would reignite the Bork hearings all over, and he's not gonna do that.
Yeah, there's a there's a right to privacy.
Uh you can infer it from uh many decisions that the court has uh has handed down.
Bam, done.
Because what the the bottom line is this, folks, and this is one of the problems with with all these nominees, no matter who they are and who nominates them.
The problem is whatever happens in this hearing, or any other judges' confirmation hearings is it is irrelevant once they get to the bench, because they're never it's not possible to hold any of them accountable to what they say in these hearings.
So I've often wondered why just okay, you want to get you want to get through this if they say Roe vs.
Wade settled law, as far as I can see, Senator, yes, blah, blah, blah.
Just I just say what you have to say to get up there and then and be who you are when you get there, because nothing's gonna hold you accountable.
At the same time, you don't want to be dishonest, but at the same time, you don't want to fall into any traps, and you know the liberals are trying to set up many traps here.
Spectre followed up uh with the question when you talk about your personal views, and as they may relate to your own faith, this the Catholic question.
Uh and I think some of this is a preemption on on Senator uh Schumer, who, by the way, in his opening statement of ten minutes yesterday, used personal pronouns 49 times.
And this is even after rehearsing on Sunday for his performance.
Anyway, Senator Specter said, when you talk about your personal views, and as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate when he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960, quote, I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me, close quote.
I agree with that, Senator, yes.
And did you have that in mind when you said there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying the precedent as well as Casey?
There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other uh sources uh that would prevent me from applying the precedence of the court faithfully under principles of starry decisis.
Okay, so there's that.
What do you what do you do with that?
Yeah, now you have to call him a liar, and now you have to, and they're typically capable of this.
I mean, don't misunderstand, they're totally capable of it.
Uh Schumer, especially, if Schumer starts talking about his deeply held personal beliefs, believe me, that's codelingo uh for his Catholicism.
Remember Christianity, Catholicism, the only two religions today that you can freely bash and make fun of and tell jokes about uh without anybody in the political correct movement condemning you.
Uh any other religion, faith, you uh you don't do it.
But with Christianity, Catholic thought Catholicism, you know, the whole uh whole whole batch of those denominations so forth, you feel free to rip whoever you want.
So he's he's he simply said here, um, up uh the views of the court, star decisis, precedence uh these things are gonna matter and take total precedence over my personal religious beliefs.
Then Spectre said, okay, you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution.
Senator I do, the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
Um it's protected by the Fourth Amendment, which provides that the right of uh people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, and papers is protected.
Uh it's protected under the First Amendment, dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise, protects privacy in matters of conscience.
So uh this again caused the uh the libs and the moderates.
I'm the ones I saw were in the media.
They saw it and they exhaled, and they thought that this answer, combined with his answer on Starr decisis, uh settled law, coupled with this and the right to privacy.
Uh they think, okay, okay, Roe's safe.
Roe is safe.
This guy is not going to touch it.
He's not going to vote to overturn it.
Now we move on to Senator DePenn's.
Uh Pat Leakey Leahy.
Uh and and he badgers Judge Roberts here about whether the Congress can order the President to end a war.
And uh Roberts does a nice dance here.
Here's the question.
Your memo suggests that Congress is powerless to stop a president who's going to conduct an unauthorized war.
I'll give you a hypothetical.
Congress passes a law for all U.S. forces to be withdrawn from the territory of a foreign nation by a set date.
The president vetoes the law.
The Congress overrides that, sets into law, you must withdraw by a certain date.
Now, is there any question in your mind, Judge Roberts, that the president would be bound to faithfully execute that law.
I don't want to answer a particular hypothetical that could come before the court, but I'm happy to comment on the memorandum that you're discussing.
No, no, wait a minute.
That's, I mean, isn't this kind of Hornbook law?
I don't know if any cases are coming before the court.
I mean, this is kind of hornbook.
Well, the Congress says to the President, you gotta get out.
Uh and pass a law which is either signed into law by the President or you override a presidential veto.
Why wouldn't the President have to charge as he is under the Constitution and faithfully execute the law?
Why wouldn't he have to follow that law?
Well, Senator, that issue of and similar issues have in fact come up.
There were, for example, lawsuits concerning the legality of the war in Vietnam, uh, various efforts, and certainly the arguments would be made on the other side about the president's authority, and that may well come before the court.
And I'm not gonna tell you what my decision would be because I haven't heard it argued yet.
Uh I think the bait here, uh, in i i in addition to Leahy attempting to get Roberts to confirm, or commit rather, to one side of the question.
The bait here is to get him drawn into a discussion of just what powers the commander-in-chief has.
I think the hope was that uh and this is where I think this is a mismatch.
I think Leahy's hope was that Roberts, oh no, the Congress couldn't do that.
I mean, the Constitution clearly says that the President is the commander-in-chief and is in charge of such decisions, and Congress can't do this with legislation and so forth.
And I think I actually hoping for some answer like that.
Uh but as you see, Judge Roberts uh danced around imperfectly and to the point of frustration.
Uh Leahy uh badgered Roberts about whether Congress can order the president, as you heard, and and Leahy had a follow-up uh answer to what Roberts answer was.
This is it.
Judge, with all due respect, the uh the cases in in Vietnam were not based on a specific law passed by Congress to get out.
I mean, Congress did cut off the funding.
Right.
In April 1975 by one vote margin in the uh armed services committee.
I know because I was the newest member of the committee at that time, uh voted to not authorize the war any longer.
But are you saying that Congress could not pass a law that we must withdraw forces?
No, Senator, I'm not.
No, he didn't say that at all.
He did.
Oh, Leahy wanted him to say it so badly.
And then Senator DePenz decides to move into torture.
He said, I asked Attorney General Gonzalez for his view of this memo, in particular this sweeping assertion of executive power which puts a president above the law.
He never gave an answer on that.
And that's one of the reasons why many voted against his confirmation.
So now let me ask you this.
Do you believe the president has override to authorize or excuse the use of torture in interrogation of enemy prisoners, even though there may be domestic and international laws prohibiting this specific practice?
Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president.
The president is fully bound by the law, uh, the Constitution and statutes.
Now, there often arises there often arise issues where there's a conflict between the legislature and the executive over an exercise of executive authority, asserted executive authority.
The framework for analyzing that is in the Youngstown uh Sheet and Tube case, uh the famous case coming out of President Truman's uh seizure of the steel mills.
When we come back, we'll let you hear how Judge Roberts uh dealt with Senator Kennedy.
Sit tight.
The EIB network rolls on right after this.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
All right.
The uh the Senate Judiciary Committee has taken an hour and a half recess here, presumably for lunch.
The Judge Roberts will go off and uh do whatever he does.
The Senate will meet with their staffs and sharpen their knives.
The uh there wasn't there was some fireworks with Senator Biden.
We'll have the audio for you coming up.
Uh came close to calling Judge Roberts a liar in the discussion about what uh Justice Ginsburg did and didn't do during her confirmation hearings.
Well, let's move on with uh with what we have.
There are a lot of other things going on today, too.
And as I say, uh the energy here is just not what it would have been without Hurricane Katrina.
Uh you you can tell that that uh the the the Democrats are not really that fired up here.
Now we haven't seen Senator Schumer yet, and that's he's the guy, he's the spearchucker.
He's the guy that's gonna be throwing the uh heavy artillery.
So we have to revise this uh uh prediction here until after that.
Uh if the Democrats do in their mind think that they have tripped Senator Turbin, too.
If Senator Turban, Senator Turban and Schumer will be the ones to watch here, and they're coming up later this afternoon.
But even even with them, uh, you know, we're dealing with rank amateurs in in both instances, particularly Turban.
And it's it's it's a tough contest of which of those two is the least qualified to be semi.
They're pseudo-scholars, pseudo-judicial scholars, Durban, especially.
Uh, but we'll see what happens.
But there just isn't the make or break energy here that we all associated with it.
And I think it's not just Hurricane Katrina, but it's also the fact that uh this now is essentially the Rehnquist seat.
So even if Roberts is concerned, uh confirmed there will be no uh balance of the power shift uh on the on the court.
So the Liberals are more prone to uh concede this one, since they really don't have any dirt in the guy anyway, concede this one and set markers for the next judge who is named by President Bush for confirmation, which would be for the O'Connor seat.
All right, here is Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy read everything he said, probably prepared for him by his staff or people for the American way, uh, or or whoever.
Uh and and uh Senator Kennedy, very long speech that sufficed as a question.
Uh and you will hear that uh he does not let Judge Roberts begin to answer the question, which uh uh uh causes Senator Specter uh to intercede.
Uh the question got started with this.
It's a long question.
This is basically the summary.
Do you still believe today that it's too onerous for the government to require universities that accept tuition payments from students who rely on federal grants and loans not to discriminate in any of their programs or activities?
No, Senator, and I did not back then.
You have not accurately represented my position.
These are your words.
I'll let him finish his answer.
Senator with a long you have selected.
Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Senator Kennedy just propounded a very, very long question.
Now let him answer the question.
Senator, you did not accurately represent my position.
The Grove City College case presented two separate questions, and it was a matter being litigated, of course, in the courts.
The universities were arguing that they were not covered at all by the civil rights laws in question simply because their students uh had federal financial assistance and attended their universities.
That was their first argument.
The second argument was even if they were covered, all that was covered was the admissions office and not other programs that themselves did not receive separate financial assistance.
Our position, the position of the administration, and again, that was the position I was advancing.
Uh uh I was not formulating policy.
Uh I was articulating and defending the administration position.
Said every word of that without once consulting notes, staring straight at Senator Kennedy, who had to read everything as almost like he was reading a ransom note from Ralph Nees.
Senator, you better read this question, or we're gonna be in heap big trouble.
So Kennedy reads the question, and it's not even an informed question, a properly informed question.
And Judge Roberts has handled it uh deftly and it's it's been like that pretty much all uh all morning long with the questions that have come from uh from democrat senators uh we'll take a break at this point because we must an EIB obscene profit break is uh scheduled next we'll be back and continue in just a moment President Bush said today that he takes full responsibility for the federal government's failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina.
This is to stanch the bleeding ladies and gentlemen and we'll discuss this in more detail as the next hour of the EIB network unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
▲
Export Selection