All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
October 5, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And here we are already at Wednesday.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome to this.
The award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting and increasingly popular growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am firmly ensconced here as America's anchorman.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-loving, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha Rushi, and the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Distinguished Institute.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We've got a great little fun little exercise that we can go through here today, folks, as we also do the play-by-play of the news.
Got some great stuff in the stacks of stuff.
We've got Jeb Bush showing some guts.
And I love this on offshore drilling for all off the coast of Florida.
He's changed his mind.
He's all for it now.
I love this.
We're going to have audio soundbites later in the program.
The foreman of the first grand jury that indicted Tom DeLay for Ronnie Earl was on our Austin affiliate today, KLBJ.
And the foreman of this grand jury admitted that he had made up his mind about delay before he had had any evidence presented to him.
And we've got, well, there's all kinds of stuff out there today.
We've got a huge see, I told you so.
And it's right here in the Washington Post on the headline, news of pandemonium may have slowed aid.
Unsubstantiated reports of violence were confirmed by some officials spread by news media.
Five weeks after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to New Orleans, some local, state, and federal officials have come to believe that exaggerations of mayhem by officials and rumors repeated uncritically in a news media helped slow the response to the disaster and tarnish the image of many of its victims.
The media was responsible for this.
I told you this last week when all these three newspapers, led by the Times, Pikiou, and the LA Times and the New York Times, all got in line in that order talking about how the media had basically reported a bunch of rumors about anarchy and rape and murder in the superdome and the convention center.
But before we get to all that, there are just a few more things that I want to address you on regarding the nomination of Harriet Myers to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
And we can couple this with this fun little exercise that I want to present to you today to help illustrate a point.
Now, the Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in a big case.
This is a case about the assisted suicide law in the state of Oregon.
The people of Oregon have twice voted by pretty substantial margins for assisted suicide, letting the medical community off people who are terminal or who want to be offed for whatever reason.
The opponents of this have managed to get this case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, this may not be as easy as you think.
I had some conversations today with people.
Hey, Rush, and it's interesting how people approach me, people who are not pure conservatives.
It's amazing the clichés that they think we conservatives believe in.
Example is one person said to me today, well, I want to know what you say about this state's rights.
Oh, it's all you conservatives talk about a state's rights, state's rights, state's rights, and you don't like the federal government.
And now, what do you say about the Supreme Court hearing this?
What about the right to vote out there to have assisted suicide?
Well, wait, just a second.
It's not that easy.
You simplify conservatism too much when you say it's simply states' rights versus the federal government or federalism.
What's at stake here?
Okay, you've got the people, just as the people in California, by the way, voted for a number of propositions to suspend welfare-type payments to illegal, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, and a federal district court both telling, you can't do that.
That's unconstitutional.
The will of people was overturned.
It wasn't the Supreme Court, but it was still a judge.
The will of the people was overturned.
Almost happened in Arizona.
The California legislature wanted to overturn via legislation another ballot initiative recently in California, forget what it was about, but the governor refused to sign it.
The Democrats backed down, so they were just trying to make a show a display here of something, but that's only because they didn't win it.
And yet, here we go again.
Now, the people of Oregon have said quite clearly in their ballot initiatives that they want to be able to kill themselves or have their doctors kill themselves or kill them if they want to die.
And too many people look at this very simply.
Okay, is it states' rights?
The people can vote anything they want, including assisted suicide.
As long as a majority say, fine, that's what we want in this country, then that's the way it is.
And no federal court, no Supreme Court's going to tell us how to live.
On the other hand, is there a compelling interest for the government here to protect and stand for the right to life and liberty in the pursuit of happiness?
And then, furthermore, do you want to turn over to the medical community, which signs an oath or takes an oath, a Hippocratic oath to heal and make well and all?
You want to turn the decision to kill and who to kill over to them.
And if it's not turning the decision on who to kill over to them, do you want to empower them to actually do the killing?
Rush it suicide.
Not killing.
I mean, we're ending a life here.
So where do you go for the answer to this?
Is there one right answer to this?
I happen to think there is, but others certainly will disagree.
And many of the disagreements will come down to something that's very simple, very simple and not complicated at all.
It's my life and I can do with it whatever I want.
And if I want to end it, then it's none of your business.
Well, yeah, as far as it goes, but you're not ending your life.
You're asking the medical community to do it.
And in my mind, you might be corrupting the medical community because we know that these kinds of laws do not solve problems.
They create new ones.
And the new problem that could be created here is: okay, so we're sanctioning the medical community to off people who are terminal or who desire it.
Okay, where could that lead?
Well, we saw where abortion led.
Abortion is simply the killing of the unwanted or the inconvenient.
And that has led to the same type of thinking in getting rid of the seasoned citizen population, the elderly.
If they become an inconvenience, they wouldn't want to live like this.
They don't like putting up.
It's just everybody would be better off if they've had a good life.
Let's just send them on to their great reward.
So then we further the notion that we can decide who is fit to live and who's not on the basis of many arbitrary things.
So who should referee this?
And what should we as a society think about it?
And where furthermore, and more importantly, do you go for the answer to this?
Well, certain justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would say, if we can find evidence that in Belgium or Great Britain, the enlightened there think absolutely this is fine and dandy, then we have to take that into account.
Other justices would say, the heck with that.
Let's go look at what the founders of the Constitution wrote, founders of the country and the Declaration of Independence.
So let's go look and see what they wrote.
What did they think about this?
Rush assisted suicide.
They didn't think a thing about it.
Oh, really?
They didn't?
They didn't.
They didn't have an opinion on assisted suicide?
Maybe not specifically and directly, but might they have had an opinion on the sanctity of life?
And might that opinion on the sanctity of life be fundamental to the structure of this particular country?
And might it be fundamental to the ongoing greatness and survivability of this country?
Might they have said something about it?
Well, who knows except those who've researched it?
Who knows except those who have taken the time to look at it?
What of those who haven't, whether they be judges or just average citizens?
What of those who haven't looked at the Constitution?
I don't care, Rush, what it says.
It's my life.
It's my grandmother's life.
It's not your business.
It's not the court's business.
It's not Thomas Jefferson's business.
It's any.
Is that true?
Is that really true?
Could be, but where do you go to find out?
Since we have these disagreements and we're going to have a wide divergence of opinion on this, where do you go to find out?
Is there a single answer to this?
Some believe that the Constitution will contain it.
Some believe the answer can be found there if you just have the guts and the courage to look.
But you also, if you're going to go to the Constitution, do a key word search on assisted suicide, you're wasting your time.
You're not going to find it.
You have to do a little bit more than that.
You have to find out exactly what was in the minds of the founders.
And this even could be worthless if you don't care that much about the Constitution.
If it doesn't matter to you, if it hasn't been taught to you in school, if it's not, if its importance hasn't been drilled into your head, the likelihood it hasn't.
Since September 17th, every year is called Constitution Day in the public schools.
It's the one day it has to be taught.
It may not be that big a deal to you.
And a lot of people say, my life, the way I live, whatever I do in my life, not going to affect the country.
A lot of people look at things like that.
I'm like, I can rob that bank.
It's not going to affect the country.
Maybe you alone, whatever you do, won't, but we're not alone.
We're about 300 million people.
My point is that these are really challenging questions.
And it's really important you get the answer right.
And is there a source authority for this?
I happen to think there is.
And that's why I believe you need remarkable people who have an ability and have studied it and care about it and have an honesty about them to be able to read it and interpret it properly.
Because it's not that hard.
A bunch of egghead elitists can make it hard, but it really isn't that hard.
So I know this is a big issue, and it's captivated the minds of the media.
And I must admit here, folks, that watching the media today, there's a macabre interest in this.
The left just seems to get more excited about anything when death is on the table.
I don't know what it is, whether it's disaster death or war death or society deciding we're going to off some of our fellow citizens.
They get ginned up about it.
You really get excited about the death aspect.
But, but you start talking about life, and somehow they just don't have as much interest in that.
As though it is enlightened to understand that it's some people's duty to die and get out of the way.
And that not everybody has a right to life.
That depends on what somebody else wants.
So I continually amazed at these people.
In addition, last night I appeared, and I only mentioned this once yesterday.
It was my fault I didn't mention it more.
I appeared with Greta Van Sustren on the Fox News channel for about the first 13 minutes of the program, and I have all of that on tape.
We've posted it on the website.
I was on the phone.
It was not on camera.
I'm just not going to leave home and go to some fleabag studio down here at 10 o'clock at night.
I'm busy.
I'm working.
So they agreed to do it on the phone, and that's where it is.
We posted at rushlimbaugh.com, both the transcript and the, and I think, oh, we put video up there, not our audio, but Greta was in New Orleans.
So I know at least the audio's there.
There may be video as well.
It is okay to stream the video as well.
But I've got the audio soundbites from it.
We're going to get into that because it has to do, she asked me some specific questions about Harriet Myers.
And of course, I did this because, you know, every today's show, Good Morning America, I mean, you name it, they've all wanted to talk to me and anybody else they can get on this.
But I knew the kind of questions I would get from Greta, and that's why I decided to do it.
And I was pretty close to what I was going to get in terms, thought of what I was going to get in the questions.
But rather than repeat it and go through it, it's just be better for you to hear it as it happened last night.
So we'll take a brief break here.
We'll come back, and we will resume with all the rest of what is destined to be broadcast excellence.
Stay with us.
Okay, here we are.
We're back.
The first bite from the Greta show last night on the Fox News channel is four minutes long, so I've got to get into it here pretty quickly.
There was one, two, three, three of these that I want to share with you.
If we'll get the first one out of the way here, her first question last night was, let me start with your thoughts about the nomination of a Harriet Myers nomination.
I'm like a lot of people had such high hopes, and it's based on many things.
I have no brief against Harriet Myers.
I have nothing against the woman.
I don't know who she is, and I'm not, I really don't know anything about her, which is one of the curious things that upsets me a little bit.
There are others so eminently qualified for this that we do know a lot about, that we have been to war with.
They have withstood all the pressures brought to bear on them because they're conservative jurists.
You don't have to worry about whether they're going to change their minds five or ten years and now be affected by the Washington culture.
And it just seems, I said something last week in the first part of this week that has been taken and run with by the media, and I said the pick appeared to be made from a standpoint of weakness.
And let me clarify this for people because a lot of my own audience has misunderstood this.
We're in a war politically in this country, which is probably usually the case, but the Democrats have lost so much.
The Democrats are reeling.
They used to have a media monopoly.
They used to run the House of Representatives.
They used to run the Senate.
They basically ran Washington and ran the country.
They've lost all that the last 20 or 30 years, and they haven't the slightest idea how to put themselves back together.
They are reeling.
And because of this war they are waging for control of the country, they have one refuge left, and that's the Supreme Court.
They have turned the Supreme Court into a place where liberalism is institutionalized and taken out of the arena of ideas and public debate.
You have liberal activist judges instituting personal policy preferences and calling it law, finding things in the Constitution that aren't there, calling it law, looking at foreign law to determine what U.S. constitutional law ought to be, seeing things in the Constitution and ignoring it.
And they're doing this because liberals cannot win at the ballot box.
They simply cannot convince enough Americans to vote for them.
So you have control of the court system.
You can institutionalize your beliefs if you have your people as judges that go ahead and make laws that are basically liberalism.
And once they're laws, they're laws.
You can't do any about it.
You can't have your elected officials debate these issues.
And so one of the things that's crucial here in, I think, pounding the final nail in the coffin of the left as a dominant force in this country is the Supreme Court.
And there have been people who have been working in the basements and behind the scenes of conservatism for 40 or 50 years.
And they have been through a lot.
They have really worked hard to do what we were told to do, go out and convince as many people as possible of our positions, explain them, turn them into informed voters, and then win at the ballot box.
When you win at the ballot box, you have control of the political process.
And your president gets the name judges to the courts.
And we must turn around this court.
We must change the direction that it's on.
And so much hope has been invested in this president because he said various things during the campaign that assured people he was going to populate the Supreme Court with certain kinds of people.
The Democrats are reeling, and there's no reason to appear frightened of them or to want to avoid a fight with them.
And I think when you're waging a war with people, and they're clearly the aggressors in the war, any sign of weakness that is shown, if they interpret it as a sign of weakness, it's only going to embolden them.
And so if a pick is made that is non-confrontational, no, we're not going to send up somebody who is readily identifiable as a conservative, or we're not going to have this debate, Democrats are going to get uplifted and think, aha, we have been able to intimidate the president into not confronting us on this.
And the court is really the last refuge they have.
And so to me, this is an opportunity that may yet, I mean, she may be fine.
As Vice President Cheney told me on the phone yesterday, in 10 years, we'll be relatively confident and assured that she was a great pick.
So we pretty much had to go to a, well, I got started my second answer, and then the heartbreak came up, and so she stopped me and started the second answer over again, which you will hear when we come back from the upcoming break here at the bottom of the hour.
Again, this whole thing is posted video and audio and a transcript at rushlimbaugh.com.
And we're also, of course, going to get to your telephone calls.
We've got people lining up already to tell me what they think about the assisted suicide law in Oregon and what the Supreme Court's decision on that should be.
So a lot yet to unfold.
We will continue in just a moment.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the second bite from my interview with Greta Van Sustrin last night.
And by the way, I know what some of you were saying.
You just bragging.
You just thought it was good, so you let it know.
It's easier to do this than try to re-say it again.
None of this was scripted, and some of you may not have heard it.
So it's just sharing it with you.
The next question was, Let me talk about President Bush's choice for a second.
Why would you think that President Bush would ever select somebody who isn't consistent with his ideology?
Well, that's a good question.
And up till now, he hasn't.
His choices for the circuit courts and the district courts have been right on the money.
But we know that because we know who they are.
And we know that he's been bold because the Democrats filibustered three to four of them.
And he fired right back at them and said, here, I'm going to send these people back up because I believe in them.
This is his first pick of significance that we don't know anything about.
Bretta, it's not that we're not confident in this case that she may work out.
It's just that there are so many other choices that would have been a slam dunk and would no questions at all would have been asked.
And those choices would have created a debate.
I firmly believe that, and go back to what I said a moment ago about how we must educate and inform the American people so that they vote and make this a truly Democratic majority that exists, be it conservative or Republican or Democrat.
We're looking for the Republican majority here.
We want it to happen legitimately.
We don't want to have to hijack a court and force our views on people when we don't want them.
We want them to understand what we're about.
We want them to understand what the left in this country is all about.
And the only way that can happen is if there's a debate.
So in this case, you send up your rock-ribbed conservative, you shock and outrage the left, you send Ted Kennedy off the deep end, you send Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer off the deep end, along with Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy and Harry Reid, and you make these people have a cow and let the American people see who they are and what they oppose and what they're for.
One of the greatest problems and challenges that we have is that the Democrats are continually able to camouflage and mask who they are.
They're able to present themselves as something they're really not.
They don't have the guts to tell us who they really are because then nobody would really vote for them.
If they ever told us what their real agenda for America is, they wouldn't have a chance.
Now, Greta, next question was interrupted by the break, as I say.
So she came back and she let me start over.
The question, here's what I don't understand about people who are right now complaining about the choice, Rush.
Number one is that nobody really knows much about her.
Presumably, we're going to learn a lot about her at the hearings.
Number two, President Bush's supporters are strong supporters of him.
They voted because they trusted his judgment.
So I don't quite understand why there's such a challenge from his supporters of his judgment now because he knows this woman.
He's been working with her closely for 10 years.
And so I'm not so sure I understand why people are slinging arrows at him who are his supporters.
Yeah, well, the court is more than just a place where you tally votes.
The court is a culture.
The Constitution is a science, Greta.
It takes remarkable people.
It is a miraculous document.
It takes remarkable people to understand that, to interpret it, and to maintain it.
And people are just going to be sent up to the court because they're going to vote the right way.
Yeah, that's fine as far as it goes.
Stephen Breyer, sitting judge, hawking a book on the Stephanopoulos show Sunday, got to talking about original intent.
He said, well, we can't mess with original intent because founding fathers had no clue that we would have automobiles and television and the internet.
They didn't dream of these things.
So we can't be bound by original intent.
And I was shocked because Stephen Breyer is a man who believes if we have to go to Mars to find law, we should.
It's okay to find foreign law, foreign custom if it'll inform us on American constitutional law.
That's absurd.
It's dangerous.
And what it is, is the personal policy preferences of the various justices in the court being substituted for the Constitution when they don't think something can be found.
And here's the key to understanding that.
So you have these nine justices, and let's just assume that they're all of the same mindset for a moment so I don't have to name one and pick one out.
But a case comes before them and they think, well, there's no way we can find out in the Constitution what this says.
So we are going to have to do the interpretation here.
And they go looking for all kinds of different places to confirm what they personally believe about it, when in fact, the Constitution does provide all kinds of mechanisms to accommodate for the fact that the founding fathers couldn't anticipate the future.
They weren't so stupid as to know or as to think that America would be the same 200 years from that date from their founding, that it would not change in these 200 years.
They knew that it would.
And they allowed for the Constitution to be amended.
There is a constitutional process to amend it.
And if something about it needs to be changed, we, the people, get in on the action.
But judges don't get to amend the Constitution based on their personal policy preferences.
Now, Breyer knows the Constitution.
And a lot of others, like Anthony Kennedy and some of the left, they know the Constitution.
They just don't like it.
If it contradicts their personal policy preferences, they don't like it.
And so they have the power.
They've appropriated the power to go ahead and say, well, we can't look at that.
I don't think the founders, they couldn't have possibly known what we're having to deal with here, blah, What are they saying about it in France?
Or what are they saying about it in South Africa?
Or what do I think about it?
And where can I find somewhere in the world that they agree with me?
And then use that as my basis for my ruling.
That's not, those are the wrong people for the court.
People are going to look at the Constitution and say, eh, I don't like that.
That's why I maintain you need remarkable people who have a deep respect, almost a love for the Constitution and a historical understanding of its assemblage.
Because it's what's held the country together.
It's what defines us as a country.
It's one of the reasons that we have held together longer than any other superpower in the history of the world.
Well, you might say we got a long way to go to match ancient Rome, but, well, they were around quite a few hundreds of years.
But nevertheless, there are just a bunch of dangerous signs out there.
So you need people who understand the science and the culture of this, I think.
And so when there are such people out there, it's just sad that they're not picked and chosen.
I don't want to beat a dead horse over this, but I wanted you to hear the interview last night.
Let me go ahead and play this last one.
She asked me, this is predictable.
She asked me who I thought the best nominee for the party in 2008 would be.
Oh, I have no clue right now.
I'm not even thinking about 2008, but I'll tell you, this is the kind of thing that could have boosted chances of 2006.
This is the kind of thing that if it lasts and the bases ends up dispirited and disappointed, there's a reason the Democrats are smiling about this, Greta.
And it's because they're at war and they're trying to get the control of the country back, and they think that this is a step back, a setback for the Republicans.
But it's way too early to start handicapping 08.
I mean, I couldn't even tell you that Hillary's going to survive the process given the way the Democratic Party's going.
She may be too pro-war for them.
I mean, that's curious.
I just know this about Harriet Meyer.
She's eminently more qualified as a lawyer than Hillary ever was.
So I don't want people thinking I'm down on her.
Okay, so she had to go to a hard break.
She was not interrupting me there because she didn't like what I said.
Now, one more thing here, because I have received some emails from some of you great members in my audience.
And if you were here yesterday, you heard some of the phone calls from people.
You know, Rush.
Rush, you're usually the one that's all optimistic.
You're usually the one that's telling us don't get all down to the dumps and don't anticipate the worst.
And why are we, it's not like you to go pessimistic on this.
I was thinking about this last night after this interview.
There's always things in an interview you wish you had said when it's over.
And the subject of optimism, pessimism didn't really come up specifically.
But I think we're looking at this pessimism thing turned in the wrong direction.
If you listen to what I'm saying, it's not inconsistent with anything else I've said.
I'm saying that we can accomplish things as a majority.
I'm saying we can triumph over Democrats.
I am saying we can nail their coffin shut.
My optimism is robust and it's visible and it's all over the place.
And those who are saying we can't, that, okay, Rush, we have to settle for whatever the weakest link of five senators say.
In other words, well, hey, we got to get somebody in there.
We can't count on Olympia Snow and Link Chafee and Susan Collins.
All right, so we're settling.
Let me ask you a question.
I'm going to ask you a point-blank, blunt question.
Every one of you who are married or are in a relationship, or even those of you, you don't want to think of your marriage or your relationship with anybody, think about your job.
How many of you regret the decision that you made because you settled, thought it was the best you could do at the time, didn't really have all that much confidence, faith in yourself?
So how many of you are in circumstances that you really don't like, that you resent or lament because you settled?
No, I'm not, I'm just trying every which way I can here to make a point.
What are you doing in there, sturdy?
What's the problem?
Is this too personal?
Sometimes this is the only way to drive home a point.
Well, we all have felt that, have we not?
The people that have not been resentful or disappointed or sad at some point over decisions they made, those are very few people that have never experienced it.
When you settle, you sell yourself short.
Settling is what pessimists do.
Settling is what people with no confidence do.
So don't tell me that I've lost my optimism.
I'm the can-do guy on this, and I'm the one that's maintaining some high standards, knowing full well they can be achieved.
So there, back after this.
Don't go away.
And we are back.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha Rushi, and to the phones.
We'll start in Charleston, South Carolina.
This is Ben, who told the call screener he is a liberal.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Indeed.
It's good to talk to you at least.
I just wanted to say that the same people that say that we can look to the Constitution and things like this, this 300-year-old document, are the same and answer all modern-day questions you could possibly have as far as this country is concerned.
Are the same kinds of people who say that you can look to the Bible to answer any possible modern-day question that you could possibly have?
You can just go look at the Gospels or anything that Jesus said, and all that's right there for you.
You know what I mean?
I just think that it's a naive way to look.
I'm sure you do.
But first place, you're making comparisons of apples and oranges.
The Bible is not the Constitution, and the Constitution is not the Bible.
A lot of the things were written in the Bible that we take and put right in our Constitution, though.
Well, thank you for saying that.
Thank you for making the point that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual people and religious and thought that there were some timeless principles that would serve this country well.
Now, I don't know.
You don't even have to go to Jesus, Ben.
The Ten Commandments are pretty comprehensive.
I know the Libs don't like the Ten Commandments because they're judgmental and they basically tell people what they can't do.
And the left doesn't want anybody telling them what they can't do.
But you probably think that since you oppose the Bible, that you're not a religious person, but I would submit to you that you are, and you may not even know it.
You just have a different deity or God or a different set of principles.
Even atheists are religious people if they don't know it.
That's what's the funniest thing about them to me.
But to draw a comparison between the Bible and the Constitution is fallacy because the Constitution is the architecture of the country.
And you most certainly can find answers to modern-day questions in it.
And in fact, practically every Supreme Court ruling today claims to do just that.
The recent Kilo ruling, they claimed that they found a method of an explanation for their ruling in the Constitution.
They interpreted incorrectly, but they said that was their source.
You should always look to the Constitution.
You should always look to the original intent because that's the architecture of the country.
This is the way we're put together.
And I know a lot of people on the left don't like the architecture of the country, think that it's inherently unfair and so forth and so on.
But I don't think you have a real world view about this.
I think that you have some pent-up resentments out there that are causing you to not like what's in the Constitution, so you don't want it to be part of the fabric.
I wouldn't say that that's necessarily the case.
I mean, a lot of other countries that have borrowed a lot of things from our Constitution, I think that some of the things in our Constitution are amazing, but we shouldn't just necessarily dismiss wholesale all of them or dismiss wholesale everything that any other country could come up with.
I mean, even though a lot of other constitutions from newer countries have taken things straight out of our Constitution because they think they're great and they speak to everyone.
I keep hearing you make my point out there.
If you actually meant to say what you just say, other countries borrow from our Constitution.
I think you're misunderstanding something.
I'm not opposed to looking at how foreigners do things and making a judgment or whether we like that or not.
In fact, Ben, I want you to listen.
Please keep your radio on for the opening monologue in the next segment.
I've got two fascinating stories about what's going on in Denmark and the Netherlands.
And it's relevant to what you're talking about.
Now, sure, we can look to these countries for guidance on how we want to live our lives, but when it comes to the law, the Constitution is the source of law in this country, constitutional law.
Supreme Court cases, constitutional law.
There is no reason or excuse to look anywhere else if you don't like what this Constitution says, because that's not the role of the judges.
And yet it is one that they have appropriated for themselves.
But don't misunderstand.
Nobody's saying here that, hey, the French have a good idea not using underground deodorant and toothpaste.
We might want to incorporate it.
Free to try.
Go ahead.
You can appropriate if you want to drive around in a little golf cart or a little bicycle with a bubble on it and call it your car.
Go right ahead.
Nobody's going to stop you.
But don't tell me that because the French do it, we have to do it.
It's individual choice.
You're talking about the law, though, especially when you're going to appropriate law from a country that does not have a constitution.
That's nothing more than judges not liking what they see in the constitution because they disagree with it and wanting to make law out of their personal policy preferences.
And that's not their role.
It's not hard to understand.
The problem you have with it is that when they do that and it's an issue you agree with, you think it's fine.
That's good because you're being selfish.
But you're not thinking about the effect on the country and the long term and the future.
And that's why these decisions are important and that's why the people that make them need to be remarkable.
Back in just a second.
So much to do on this program today.
We're going to have to speak fast.
The left is now, they don't like this business of Harriet Myers being an evangelical.
Now she's a religious kook.
The left is ginning up for this.
And I knew this was coming.
We'll talk about that.
But I want you to listen.
The monologue segment next to offer these two stories from Denmark and the Netherlands.
▲
Export Selection