Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I'll tell you, it just keeps getting more and more surreal out there now.
I tell you, it just had at least two alternative parallels now, parallel realities out there, folks.
Greetings.
Welcome.
Great to have you back.
We got broadcast excellence, and we're off and running.
I need to make a retraction.
There were riots in New Orleans, ladies and gentlemen.
They were conducted by the government, the New Orleans police, beating up this guy.
Have you read about this guy?
That they've been a very nice guy, apparently.
And he's denying he was drunk, and he's not even saying race had anything to do with it.
Anyway, greetings and welcome.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Brian, I'm sorry I forgot to mention this to you earlier.
I've been swamped in here.
Go ahead and turn on the ditto cam.
I didn't get to do any of the work I normally do at night last night prepping this program because I took a quick jaunt out of town, see one of my mistresses.
And I got back late, and I was just pooped because I haven't been to bed before 2 in the morning since last Thursday night.
So I just, I, well, that's how we ubersexuals are.
I mean, he's, and I am uber man.
I mean, if there's a new book out called Ubersexuals and it defines them, I talked about this yesterday.
If I have to go into it and you didn't hear it, I will, but hope I don't.
Because I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what an uber sexual is.
An uber sexual is a real man.
A man, what a man used to be before the feminists came along and neutered him.
Or us.
Well, I can't say us because they never neutered me, though they tried.
And so now, anyway, I just came in last night, crashed about 11.30.
So I have been, I've been, I mean, I have just been chock busy here this morning going through all the stuff I would normally do last night, plus the stuff, the stuff that has come out today.
I guess at the top of the list, Jim Dobson recorded his radio show for today and tomorrow yesterday.
The transcripts of that show are out.
Now, as you know, one of the things that irked Senator Spector is that Dobson admitted that maybe Karl Rove told him some things he shouldn't know.
Everybody assumed when he called him to give him a heads up on the nomination of Harriet Myers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well, everybody ran and rushed to judgment on that and said, aha, aha.
Rove told Dobson that she's a definite vote against Roe versus Wade.
Which, of course, if that were actually true, the senators on the Judiciary Committee would all want to know that because judges and nominees can't take that position.
And Specter even admits that.
So this firestorm that started yesterday over this comment has now been quelled, I say, but maybe a new one has been started.
Because what Dobson says that Rove told him that he shouldn't have told him was that a number of other, it had to be a woman.
And the first thing was the nominee had to be a woman, i.e. quota.
Second thing was that Rove told Dobson that very few of the qualified female nominees accepted the nomination.
They weren't interested in it.
Now, if you just stop there, oh, okay, well, that makes this somewhat more understandable.
But you don't stop there.
Mr. Snerdley, when I say to you, or any of you in this audience, when I say to you, okay, Karl Rove said that a lot of the other qualified women just didn't want it.
They weren't interested in it because they don't like the nomination process.
They don't want to subject their families to all this.
They want to subject themselves to it.
It's an anal exam.
It's a judicial and media anal exam.
You don't want to subject your family.
And that's what they're saying.
A lot of these qualified female nominees, the names are Janice Rogers, Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones.
There's some others on the list too, but not as many women as men.
But since Dobson said that this Rove told him the nominee had to be a woman, okay, that cuts it, that cuts the list down to about 80% of the people that we know who are on it.
And then when you say, well, well, none of the others really wanted it, what does that say?
Well, unfortunately, what it says is that this is so hard.
There's only one conclusion.
There's only one.
If none of the others would accept it, it means that there were others asked prior to Harriet Myers.
Okay, number one.
Number two, if those others who were asked before Harriet Myers said no, it means that, well, put two and two together and you get four.
It means that Harriet was not first choice.
If this is true.
Now, I've met Dr. Dobson on a number of occasions.
I cannot say that I know him well, but I just cannot imagine that Dr. Dobson will come out on his show.
To associate the word lying with Dr. Dobson is just, you can't do that.
That's not something that I would ever associate.
So you have to assume here that that's what he was told.
And if he was told that, then essentially what he was told was, hey, this is the best we can get right now.
Not the best we can get, but the best we can get right now.
But it's not her fault and it's not Bush's fault because none of the others wanted this.
Now the latest is that the White House has sent the Attorney General out, Alberto Gonzalez, to vouch for Harriet Myers.
I personally, I have, just so you people know, but I want to give you a heads up here on another firestorm.
This is two firestorms today.
I personally have no brief against the Attorney General, Mr. Gonzalez, but there are many in the, shall I say, the elitist and sexist conservative community who would oppose Gonzalez more than they would oppose Harriet Myers, or just as much.
And so if Gonzalez is being sent out to assure everybody that Harriet Myers is fine, with some people on the right, some of these conservative scholars and illegal beagles, that's only going to make matters worse, folks.
I can tell you what I expect to happen here.
I expect, and I'm sure it has already happened, that some hawkeyed journalists are going to be trying to reach these other female nominees who've been on everybody's list and ask them if they were approached.
And if they said no, I'm not interested because I don't want to go before the nomination process.
I don't know if these three women, four women, however many of there are, will answer the questions that are posed by these hawkeyed journalists, but you know that's probably happening now.
And the well, it just, it, it just, it just, and then You see, I'm really struggling here, folks.
It's two days in a row here.
I'm struggling.
Yesterday, it was opponents of Harriet Myers could be sexist today.
It's this.
Now we've got, and I told you this the day after, the day after she was nominated, there was a, but before the left had glommed onto the fact that she was not popular with the right, and when the left thought that it was their job to destroy her, The first day, first or second day after her nomination, there was a reference in some paper, and I forget what it was,
that she had a role in Bush getting a favorable deal, AWOL deal, whatever it was with the Texas Air National Guard.
Because it's an involvement over somebody she fired at the Texas Lottery Commission who claims to know that she was involved in the deal that everybody on the left thinks that Bush got.
And this has come back to life now.
There's a huge, big story on this.
Some people are only seeing it for the first time.
I saw it the first day or the second.
I mentioned it on this program.
I mean, if we want, Coco can go back and get the transcript of that.
It was last week or whatever it was, the first or second day after the Myers nomination.
And before all of the anti-Harriet Myers opinion really ginned up to full voice, as I say, when the left thought that it was their job to destroy any nominee, they began to set the table listing all the things wrong with her.
And that was one of the things.
And now all of a sudden, it's back.
And it's back in a prominent way.
I'll find it for you here in the stack at some point.
We've got that.
We've got, we are loaded here.
The fur is flying all over the place here today, folks.
And you need me, El Rushball, Uberman, keep it all sorted out for you.
And we will do that throughout the next three hours.
Sit tight, be right back.
Harriet Myers was nominated on October 3rd.
On October 4th, I told you of one of the tactics that the left was going to use to try to destroy her nomination.
Today it's back.
This is from the Austin American Statesman.
And it's circus time, folks.
And now the left is, I think, is getting in gear on this as well.
See, they can't just sit by and watch this.
Their own contributors, their activists are demanding that they do more than just sit by.
They want the firewater and the words and all that.
So from the Washington Bureau of the Austin American Statesman, a story by Ken Herman, Bush's guard service may affect Meyers' nomination.
A former Texas lottery official said he wants to talk to senators about the Supreme Court nominee's role in covering up Bush's record.
Here are the details.
A former Texas lottery official who claimed that then Governor Bush's desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract said he wants to talk to senators about Harriet Meyer's possible role in that effort.
Lawrence Littwin, who filed a lawsuit after he was fired as the lottery's executive director in 97, said if I were to be subpoenaed to come to that thing, I'd come.
I would say to the committee I think would be interested.
Littwin claimed in a federal lawsuit that lottery operator G-Tech held sway over the Texas Lottery Commission because former G-Tech lobbyist Ben Barnes was involved in helping get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
G-Tech, which settled the suit in 99 and paid Litwin 300 grand without admitting any wrongdoing, said in court filings that Litwin's guard-related claims were preposterous.
A Bush appointee, Myers, served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission when it was mired in controversy.
President Bush cited that record Monday in announcing his nomination of his longtime friend and advisor to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Now, Litwin was hired in 97 to replace Nora Lenares, who had been fired after it was revealed that her boyfriend was working as a consultant for G-Tech.
It's a Rhode Island firm that has run the Texas lottery since it began in 1992.
Littwin was fired after five months on the job, said he was let go because of the aggressive approach that he advocated in scrutinizing G-Tech's performance, including investigating whether the company made illegal contributions to public officials.
Littwin sued the company, seeking $2.6 million, claiming it had arranged his firing.
The lawsuit cited G-Tech lobbyist Ben Barnes' claims that as Texas House Speaker, he had helped to get Bush into the guard.
Litwin's suit said that G-Tech had been given preferential treatment by the commission, which controlled the contract.
Under pressure from the Lottery Commission, G-Tech has severed ties with Barnes.
Before Litwin was hired as executive director, G-Tech paid Barnes and partner Ricky Knox $23 million to end their consulting contract.
So this guy, this guy, Litwin, wants to go testify.
He's begging for a subpoena.
He wants to go testify, and he wants to point out that Myers got rid of him because he had the goods on Bush and this Texas Air National Guard story.
So there it is.
It has come back to life after being in one long little newspaper report on October 4th.
Bloomington, Illinois.
This is Trudy.
Welcome, Trudy, and congratulations on the White Sox last night.
Oh, thank you.
Actually, I'm a Cubs fan, and we just can't cross over.
Yeah, well, Illinois, you take the White Sox.
I mean, I know the last time they won the World Series, they threw it.
So I know it's a tough cross to bear, but Illinois hadn't had a good thing.
See, that goes to my point of being faithful, loyal, true, even to conservative issues, Rush.
Yes.
And for a long time, I've said feminists don't speak for me, and now I'm beginning to think a lot of the conservatives don't speak for me.
And I've been listening to Crystal.
I've been listening to others from National Review, Weekly Standard.
And, you know, there are some of us that are conservatives, mainly because of our religious views, who pounded yard signs, worked precincts, walked them for candidates, et cetera.
And we voted for George Bush, and we didn't vote for these other people.
And I am more confident today after listening to Dobson's show today, after hearing Ten Star on that show, that Bush indeed has probably nominated somebody I am going to be confident in and glad that she's on the bench.
Okay, and you feel alienated from, do you include me in that list from people?
I'm beginning to think so.
Why?
Why?
Just because I'm not full-fledged on board for this.
Well, in the last week, I've been listening to these tirades about this nomination.
Wait a minute.
You haven't heard any tirades from me, either.
You've heard reasoned explanations.
Well, I guess we never recognize our own tirades.
Oh, oh.
So I need to, have I sounded like I'm on tirades about this?
Well, and you know, it's probably coming from the perspective I'm at.
You know, I'm, I'm, I'm confident in my president.
Okay, let me ask you a question.
I need to ask you a point-blank question because this is this is fundamental and key if you are to be able to understand where I come from on this.
I could lead you with this question or I could ask you without leading you first.
Oh, that'd be good.
Pardon?
I said that would be good.
Okay, what is it about Harriet Myers and her nomination?
What is it really?
What is the real reason that you are supportive of this nomination?
When the president first announced her with her at his side, I felt he sent out signals at the time.
And included in those signals were some of the things that she was involved in.
She was involved in some conservative issues that are where my heart is.
And maybe a lot of conservatives that are fiscal conservatives didn't recognize those.
I felt he said them for a reason.
I think he told us she was involved in Exodus ministries for a reason.
Can I try to nail this down a little?
You are supportive because you think that she is pro-life and is going to vote to overturn Roe versus Wade.
And other moral fundamental issues.
Other moral fundamental issues.
Okay.
And Ken Starr, he said a lot of great things about her today on Dobson.
Well, I've not said anything bad about her.
See, I think this is worthy.
I'm opposed to nomination, but I've made it plain that I have no animus against her.
I have no brief against.
She may be a fine, fine person.
I just don't.
I think I'm beginning to feel with conservatives, though, the schism that's developing this week, that there are those of us that often are used by the others.
Maybe they feel the same way.
But I do feel that sometimes we're used to do the legwork, the free manning of phone banks, for instance, pounding those yard signs and getting out the vote for these candidates.
And we want to see these issues addressed.
That's why we've been doing this legwork all these years.
But I'm also hearing this weekend talking points to conservatives, where have they gotten these talking points?
Here's one.
The deep conservative bench.
Now, that's not a talking point.
Your average person like me, I'm a housewife.
That's not something that's in my vocabulary.
But suddenly I'm hearing it on all these conservative shows.
Where do they get this?
Well, I'll be glad to explain this to you.
I don't have enough time before the next commercial break is coming up, but I think they're getting that from me.
I think they get a lot of what they get from me.
And the deep conservative bench is all of the conservatives that we know, and we already know how they rule as appellate judges.
The conservative bench is those conservatives who have passed muster prior to today, who have ruled on cases, who have a judicial philosophy that we can know because they're on the appellate court in some circuit.
That's the bench.
Also, some people that have not maybe made it to the appellate court.
They're district court judges and others.
But hang on here a minute, Trudy, because I'm going to take advantage of your call here to perhaps address a whole lot of people who have your mindset about this.
Okay, we're back.
Great to have you with us.
And it's Elle Rushball having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have her back to Trudy in Bloomington, Illinois.
Trudy, are you there?
I am.
Okay, good.
I'm going to spend as much time on this as I have to because I...
No, no, no, no, no.
I want you to go away from here, at least understanding where I'm coming from.
I don't speak for any of these other people.
I'm not echoing them.
I don't choose sides.
What's in my heart, what's in my mind is what you hear on this program.
Well, can we look at what you just said about the deep bench?
What?
Remember what I asked before the break about.
But didn't Scalia address that this week in that interview with NBC, that he said that it was good for the court to reach outside that pool of judges?
Yeah.
Okay, look, I'm not going to try to persuade you.
Or change your mind.
That's not what I'm trying to do here.
And you're not going to change mind on this.
But I want you to understand, because I know exactly where you're coming from on this.
I understand it totally.
But I want to try to tell you why I am not on the same page with you on this.
Great.
The first thing that you, one of the things that you said was that you feel used or left out by conservatism.
And I don't know how that can be.
Conservatism is not a party.
Conservatism is an ideology set of principles.
And you either agree with them or you don't.
But conservatism is not something that can use you.
Now, Republican Party can use you, but a conservative movement really so much can't.
The conservative movement here is not betraying anybody.
The conservative movement did not make this choice.
So that's one thing.
But I just want to make it very simple.
The reason why I think you support this and the reason why I think we could do better, it's, and by the way, I'm, well, let me just keep things in order.
I know that the powerful motivating factor for many, for millions of Americans, is Roe versus Wade and abortion.
And the president has made it clear, and has Dr. Dobson made it clear, and many of the other supporters.
And by the way, Ken Starr vetted Sando Day O'Connor, too.
Ken Starr said that Sandra Day O'Connor was cool.
Ronald Reagan thought she was the best.
And she turned out not to be what everybody told us that she was.
I mean, I can give you countless examples of this.
And in fact, I'd like to read to you a quote from, if I can find it, from a speech that someone gave about 20 years ago.
And I want to ask you if you know who made this statement.
Back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, trust me, and a lot of people did.
Trust me, government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man, that we trust him to do what's best for us.
My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.
The trust is where it belongs in the people.
The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs in their leaders.
Do you know who said that?
Well, I'm just going to guess that it may perhaps have even been James Dobson.
No, that was Ronald Reagan accepting the Republican Party nomination for president July 17th of 1980.
So now that you know who said it, let me read it to you again.
Back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, trust me, and a lot of people did.
Trust me, government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man, that we trust him to do what's best for us.
My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.
The trust is where it belongs in the people.
The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs in their elected leaders.
Now, Reagan happens to be my hero.
And so I wanted to mention that to you.
Let's go to Roe versus Wade because I know that that's where a majority of people who are for this nomination are for it.
And I understand it 100%.
I understand it totally, particularly with the way Harriet Myers has been presented.
She's been presented as an evangelical.
She's been presented as someone deeply religious who's born again, who found Christ at a later stage of her life, has that bond of familiarity and commonality with President Bush.
And this is viewed as the president keeping a promise.
And it's very heartwarming and it's very encouraging and enthusiastic to people who hold this view.
Like you, I am anti-abortion and pro-life.
And like you, I am anti-Roe versus Wade.
But here is where I think there might be some parting of the ways of what we look for in a Supreme Court justice.
See, you're looking for a vote and you are also saying, correct me if I'm wrong about any of this because I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
I'm just based on what you told me before the break.
You told me that you believe the morality and ideals of a conservative will lead to the proper adjudication of cases by a justice on the Supreme Court, correct?
Hopefully, yes.
Yeah, okay.
Hopefully, yes.
And I understand that too.
And I understand it largely because many in the conservative movement, conservative voters have been told that that's the case, that you can trust a conservative.
And in an equal playing field and all things being equal, you can.
But we've sent many people that we thought were conservatives to the Supreme Court who all of a sudden over the years change.
They grow, quote unquote, because they become succumb to the Washington culture, the D.C. liberal culture.
They succumb to the free invitations to go make speeches to all kinds of groups, and they get really ego-driven.
The idea that they're one of nine people that can determine the laws of this country.
And so a lot of people that were thought to be conservative when they were nominated turned out not to be.
There are ways to avoid that.
However, before going into those, my attitude on Roe versus Wade is this.
Yeah, it's wrong.
It's a horrible thing that happened to the country in so many ways, a moral way.
It has roiled this country politically.
It is a case that should have never been decided at the Supreme Court.
It's a case they never should have taken.
It is a case that has prevented the issue from being decided by the people of this country democratically.
And that's why it roils our society so.
The people have yet to have a say on this.
Now, if Roe versus Wade is overturned, let's say Harriet Myers is nominated, confirmed, and then the president gets some more judges and we finally get 5-4 position in the Supreme Court and Roe versus Wade's overturned.
What's going to then happen is that abortion will still be legal.
It will be sent back to the states.
And as you are sitting here talking to me today, I can guarantee you that some states in this country will vote to legalize it.
Some states won't.
It'll be illegal in some states and legal in some others.
This will invite further legal scrutiny, but it'll take some years for this to happen.
The primary reason that I, Rush Limbaugh, not any of these other people that you are listening to and are being bothered by, the primary reason that I'm bothered by Roe versus Wade, and there are two, but the first reason is it is an abomination of the role of the Constitution and the courts in this country because of the way it was decided.
Do you know that there are people out there, Trudy, who think Roe versus Wade is horrible law who are pro-abortion?
There are some Democrats, some liberals who don't like abortion because of their religious beliefs.
There's some liberals who do like, they're all for it, but they think Roe versus Wade is bad law.
I think both are wrong.
I think it's bad law and I think it's a horrible thing abortion is.
But the reason it's bad law is not because it sanctions the murder of children alone.
The reason it's bad law is because nine men in robes decided that the Constitution found that or says something about abortion.
They said that abortion, the killing of unborn children, is constitutional.
Well, the Constitution doesn't say that.
Way back in 1973, the Constitution does not say that, yet nine men in black robes said that it did.
Well, now, if nine people in black robes, or a majority of them, can look at the Constitution and not see something in it and go ahead and put it there, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.
So the reason for wanting a nominee who goes beyond the morality of Roe versus Wade and the legality of it and the whole constitutionality of it is of paramount importance to me because there are going to be all kinds of cases above and beyond and after Roe versus Wade.
Kilo versus New London, Connecticut is one of the most recent outrages.
The Supreme Court currently looking to foreign law to find justification for their own personal policy preferences.
When Roe versus Wade was affirmed by the Supreme Court, what essentially happened was that the Supreme Court said, we nine people can determine what's in that document and what isn't.
We can put things in it that aren't there and we can take things out of it that are there.
We have that power.
Well, that treaty has got to be stopped.
We have to have people on the court who have a respect for the original intent of the Constitution and who will not rise to the level of ego to the point that they think they are more powerful than the document and to bastardize it by finding things in it which aren't there and removing things from it which are.
So the second reason I abhor Roe versus Wade is because it sanctions the murder of illegal children.
And they're pretty close, but I cannot, as an individual, looking at one of my first reasons, the unconstitutionality of this, say, okay, to a person to the court whose constitutional philosophy I don't know anything about.
This has nothing to do with disagreeing the president.
It has nothing to do with disagreeing with Harriet Myers.
It has nothing to do with sabotaging anything.
It is nothing more than what I have always professed in this program, and that is a deep love, respect, and loyalty to the Constitution and an overarching fear that we're about to lose it.
And we need incredible people on this court who have proven they will not buckle to the Washington pressure, that they will not buckle to conventional wisdom, that they will not buckle to their own egos and will do what they are supposed to do, and that is simply determine what is and is not constitutional.
Even that's a bit of a stretch for the court, but they assumed that role for themselve way back in the Marbury versus Madison case.
So my only point in all of this is that I've always thought that somebody could do better.
Now, this criticism of mine is being interpreted by you and others as trying to sabotage the nomination, disagreeing with the president, screwing up an opportunity to overturn Roe versus Wade.
And I understand totally why people think that when they hear me say this, but I have an 18-year track record here, 17-year track record, and none of what I've said to you today or in the past few weeks about this is inconsistent with any of my views.
Just because I may not think Harriet Myers is the best nominee does not mean I've changed my mind on Roe versus Wade.
It's just the opposite.
I want some more guarantees than what we're being offered here, or at least then there are none, but I want at least better odds than we're being offered here.
Will you be happy if her name is not withdrawn?
Well, let me take a break here because if I don't take a break now, the next segment is going to be real short and people are going to think I've added commercials on them.
So hang on.
I'll answer the question.
We come back.
Don't go away, folks.
The EIB network rolls on right after this.
Okay, the fur continues to fly.
And we go back now to Trudy in Bloomington.
What was your question again, Trudy?
At the very beginning?
No, no, the one you just asked right before we went to the break.
You said about me being happy if she's...
How are you going to feel if her name is not withdrawn?
Uh...
No different than I feel now.
I'm not trying to affect anything here.
Look at if I were trying to affect things, I'd be on the phone to the White House.
This is not what I use this program for.
You are the audience.
The White House is not the audience.
The Senate is not the audience.
You are the audience.
Everybody listening is the audience.
All I'm doing is telling you what I think about it.
I've listened to some of the White House criticism of the opponents of the nomination.
We're sexist or elitist.
And I'm listening to terms that we generally use to criticize the left.
And I've tried this case.
Suppose I was on the White House staff, and I was being set out to defend this nomination using these terms.
I couldn't do it because I know the people that they're talking about.
The conservatives are not sexist.
The women that they're on their lists are numerous.
Janice Rogers Brown.
There's no sexism in this opposition to Harriet Myers.
So all I'm doing, all I ever do on this program is attempt to inform you and be honest with what I think, you know, with a little entertainment sprinkled in now and then.
But I'm not trying to affect any kind of an outcome here.
So if she's nominated, if she doesn't withdraw, if the president doesn't withdraw her, we deal with that as it happens.
And we go through the hearings and see what we see.
All I'm doing here is, and I'm not trying to sabotage this either.
I don't know that I've got the power to do that, Trudy.
I mean, a lot of people might think that I do, but I frankly think that that's a little bit overwrought to think that I'm going to have any say-so what's happened with Harriet Myers.
I'm just, there are going to be other nominations down the line.
They're going to be, this president's going to have perhaps one and maybe two more.
And what I just told you about one of the reasons I oppose Roe versus Wade, they're going to be lots of cases, and they're going to deal with culture.
They're going to deal with our society.
Look at this court overturning 16 or 19, I forget what it was, state laws on same-sex sodomy.
This court just overturned them on the base of foreign law.
This is because judges are not looking at the Constitution.
To overturn the law, these laws, you would have to say the Constitution says something about these laws in the states, and it doesn't.
Then you'd have to agree that the Constitution is allowed to Trump or the Supreme Court's allowed to Trump the Constitution when it comes to state law.
There's some real bastardization of the Constitution going on, and it isn't just Roe versus Wade.
And if we don't get people on this court who are willing to honestly read the Constitution when deciding constitutional cases, you're going to have row after row after row in terms of decisions.
They may not be as personally repugnant and repelling as abortion is, but they're still going to roil the society.
As long as this court is considered the final political and social arbiter on what's legal and illegal in this country, we're going to have arguments about our culture, whether it's about abortion or not.
And that's not what this court should be doing.
It's not the final place where we go to decide political issues.
That's the U.S. Congress.
That's the House of Representatives and the president either signing or vetoing.
The court has usurped so much power.
The court has taken upon itself the role of deciding what's legal and illegal culturally, socially.
It's not its role, particularly when they're going to find things in the Constitution which are not there.
And ending that goes beyond just voting the right way on Roe versus Wade.
So, look, I can disagree with the president without being disloyal.
And that's what I'm, I'm not disloyal to the president at all, but I disagree on this.
It's plain and simple.
I can't lie to you about it, just to get your support.
Thank you, Trudy, for your call and your question and your patience.
But I really think that some people think this disagreement with the president means disloyalty and running away from him, and it's not that at all.
When you disagree with your spouse, you're not being disloyal.