All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
November 14, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Get the feeling that today's whole show is going to be kind of a bad news, good news kind of thing.
So let's just get started with it.
The bad news is Rush is not here.
I don't know if I can say that the good news is that I'm here because that would be self-centered and egomaniacal.
And I am not that.
Rush is not here.
I am trying to fill the bill for him today.
And I want to open the program with the fight that is coming over Alito.
Today's New York Times, page one, the Monday paper.
This is this week's fight.
We had Valerie play him last week.
Bush lied on weapons of mass destruction last week.
This is going to be their push this week.
They now are going to change the focus to Alito.
The New York Times says later this week, a major multi-million dollar advertising campaign will begin to try to discredit Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and they are not going to focus on abortion.
That's been the central point of the strategy from the left in the beginning on Alito.
He's going to overturn Roe versus Wade.
He's going to threaten a woman's right to choose and so on.
They are going to try to move on to other issues with regard to Alito.
And they're going to try to suggest that he's an extremist.
Quoted in the story, Nan Aaron, anywhere you see Nan Aaron, be ready for a smear.
She is one of the leaders of the liberal hit squad.
They have a poll out.
And this poll was conducted by, I love this, NARAL, Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and the Sierra Club.
Everybody's there.
They've got them all on the list.
If you're a major lefty organization and you weren't asked to pay for that poll, you're going to feel really excluded.
They're all there, and this is the first string for the American left.
They released a poll that concludes that a number of the rulings of Samuel Alito are outside the, get ready for it, the American mainstream.
The left has never been so concerned about the mainstream as it is now.
These are people who have never been in the mainstream in their lives.
Suddenly, the mainstream is where they want to force everyone.
Among the issues raised by the poll, according to the New York Times, Judge Alito's support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer's right to fire someone who had AIDS.
Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip search of a suspected drug dealer's female companion and her 10-year-old daughter.
Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
So, you can visualize the ads now.
Some little child facing a strip search upon the orders of Samuel Alito.
This is Samuel Alito's America.
Do you want our children strip searched?
That's going to be the tack they're going to take.
And it is going to be despicable.
And it is going to misstate and exaggerate exactly what Judge Alito ruled or in his prior life, Attorney Alito advocated.
They're going to do all of those things.
And they're going to try to demonize him.
And they're going to try to suggest that this brilliant jurist is somehow unfit to be on the United States Supreme Court.
But as I said, there is a good news aspect of this.
We should not shy away from this fight.
This fight is a long time coming.
If the liberals want to pick it, if the liberals want to cherry-pick the entire career of Judge Alito and find three or five or six or seven rulings that somehow imply that he is an extremist, rather than running away from this fight, we ought to engage it.
Because as I said, this fight is needed.
We need a debate in this country over what the role of the Supreme Court of the United States really is.
There are a lot of Americans who think those judges just sit up there and vote on what they believe.
And that is how liberal judges rule.
Well, I think this, therefore I'm going to rule that.
That's not the role of the Supreme Court.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
Now that sounds dry, and that can be a hard sell when you approach the American people, but it's an argument that has to be made.
You have an entire generation of Americans who believe that the role of the United States Supreme Court is to decide what the rules of golf are, that the role of the Supreme Court of the United States is to go in and set policy in individual communities.
It's not.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
Why is this important?
Because if their role is something other than that, they're taking away power from all of us.
If the Supreme Court gets to be the final say on everything, if the Supreme Court decides, for example, if you can strip search a 10-year-old, if the Supreme Court decides in all of these other areas where they're going to be attacking Alito, that means that the elected representatives of the people don't have any say in it.
You can turn this on the left very easily.
By giving the Supreme Court the right to make policy in all of these areas, you are disempowering the left just as much as you are disempowering the right.
Now, the left doesn't see it that way because most things that the left cares about in America will never be legislated, will never be approved by any city council, will never be approved by a state legislature, will not be approved by a Congress, and will not be signed by a president because the left is the side that is actually outside the mainstream.
Every major initiative they've had in the last 40 years in social policy in this country has come from court mandate.
These are things that the American people have never asked for and have never wanted.
And you've got to be able to make the case that the role of the Supreme Court isn't to decide what public policy in this country is.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not policy that has been made violates the Constitution.
If it does, then it should be struck down.
The role of the Supreme Court is to decide in criminal cases if someone's constitutional rights have been violated, not whether or not the person was handled nicely, not whether or not you approve of techniques that police used, but were this individual, was this individual's constitutional rights violated.
And I really think that this fight is necessary because many people have never viewed it that way.
Now let's take the case.
Let's take the case of the argument that Alito made as an attorney in the Reagan administration 20 years ago that an employer had the right to fire someone if that person had AIDS.
That seems despicable.
Seems terrible.
It seems contrary to what we Americans believe.
But at the time, it was the law.
And what Alito was advising in his memo was a defense of the law.
If you didn't believe back in 1985 that an employer had the right to fire someone who had AIDS, you can change the law.
And in fact, we have changed the law many times.
We've since passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We've passed all sorts of legislation to deal with what an employee's rights are and what an employer's rights are in situations like that.
And that's the way to handle it.
Even if you don't like the outcome of that law, you still have a voice.
You can contact your elected official.
You can contact your governor.
You can contact the president.
You can use your vote.
You can do everything that you have the right, the ability to do as a citizen to effect changes in the law.
But when we give the Supreme Court the right to simply come down from on high and say, you can't do this, you must do that, we're just disempowering ourselves.
So the left can go and take all of these rulings of Alito in which he was doing nothing more than defending the law and defending the Constitution and portray him as a certain way.
But I'm telling you that we can't back away from that.
The first thing we can't do is take the bait.
You can't, for example, get up and say, yeah, you should be able to fire somebody if they have AIDS, because that's playing the game on the left's playing field.
All they ever care about is fairness and outcomes.
There is something more important than that.
We have to defend the Constitution and defend the notion of judges, and in this case, Supreme Court justices, who interpret the Constitution and not make it up as we go along.
So if they want to say that Samuel Alito thinks it's okay to fire somebody who has AIDS, there's got to be a response that's offered to that.
As for the strip search, then Judge Alito ruled that this did not violate the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The police in that instance did indeed strip search a 10-year-old child and the girlfriend of the drug dealer.
It's well known that drug dealers will often hide their drugs on other people precisely for that reason.
Judge Alito didn't say this is a good thing.
He didn't say it's good that a 10-year-old boy has to face this indignity.
He merely said that the police were within their rights in using that technique at the time.
By the way, they found the drugs that way.
So as I say, I think that it's very, very important that we not run away from this fight.
It's been long overdue in this country.
Justice Alito is a brilliant man.
He is fit to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.
What they are going to attempt to do is find rulings that he has issued and portray him as perhaps believing things that he may not believe in because what he believed in is the law.
I think we're going to win this fight, and I think it's important that it happened because if it is one, the next nominee from President Bush, if there is one, will not be somebody who has to have a stealth record where you can't find any fingerprints on any ruling from the past that may be controversial.
Instead, we will have established the premise that a conservative view of the law and a conservative view of the role of the Constitution is not disqualifying to be a Supreme Court justice.
So if Nan Aaron and Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way and every other lefty kook wants to have at it here, I say bring it on and let's take them on on this and define what the role of the federal courts are, what the role of the Supreme Court is here in the United States.
My name is Mark Belling and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
The left is going to begin a nationwide television advertising campaign.
When I say the left, I mean the heavy hitters of the left.
All the major groups are part of this.
Several million dollars attacking Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
They are going to focus on two or three or four or five of his rulings or opinions as a lawyer and argue that he is outside the American mainstream.
As I say, this is not a fight that we ought to shy away from, and I am not shying away.
Waukegan, Illinois, Mike, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Mark?
Yes.
Yeah, how you doing?
Yeah, I just want to say, what do you think of if Scalito would okay that a child be searched for drugs?
How about this ruling now that's coming out of San Francisco where they're going to come really down heavy on weapons, handguns, and that type of thing?
Should children be also searched for handguns?
I don't know.
I don't know.
And we all did catch that cute little reference to Alito's last name.
Parmi, I can barely hear you.
Yeah, well, I can speak more clearly because you're going to need help here.
I don't know.
My answer to that is that the court ought to rule on what the Constitution says.
But if you don't like a policy that comes out of some community, that community has the right to change that policy.
That's the way things should be done.
The Supreme Court shouldn't be nine men and women put on high to simply decide public policy in the United States.
Well, if the public policy says, okay, that in this particular community, San Francisco, handguns are strictly banned, as well as other weapons.
But of course, a handgun you can conceal on a child.
So if the child has the, in other words, should the police be able to stop people on the street, do they have children and search those children for handguns?
I don't know.
What do you think?
Well, what do I think?
If they can do it for drugs, they can do it for handguns.
I'm just asking you.
Do you think that a good thing or not?
I think it's terrible, but I mean, if we're going to do it for drugs, we should do it for handguns.
Okay, again, why do you think it's terrible?
Pardon me?
This is the argument that I want people to start having in this country.
Why would it be terrible to search children for handguns?
Why would it be?
Yeah.
I think it, I don't know.
I think that if we're going to do it...
Well, you just said it would be terrible.
Now you don't know why it would be terrible.
My answer to that is that policies like this, unless they deal with a constitutional right, and when you're talking about guns, they may.
But the only basis for the Supreme Court's intervention in something like that is if a constitutional right is affected.
If you're talking about what the policies of a police in a particular community are with regard to things like that, those are things that should be dealt with in that community by elected representatives of the people and not by a bunch of judges in Washington, D.C.
And in many cases, what you are going to see conservative jurists do is strike down appeals that try to throw out a conviction on a serious crime because of something that happened somewhere in some way that affected the arrest.
What will now happen with Alito is there's going to be a suggestion that he approves of that.
He may not necessarily be approving of it.
He's simply saying that it's not part of the role of the Supreme Court to step in here.
Thank you for the call, Mike.
To Miami and Joe, Joe, you're on EIB with Mark Bellingham.
Thanks.
That last caller is missing one very important thing, and that is the city of San Francisco cannot simply choose on a whim to pass a city ordinance that invalidates a Second Amendment.
They can't just outlaw guns.
That's correct.
That is where the Supreme Court steps in.
If the Constitution says otherwise, the Supreme Court not only can, but should and is required to strike down a law.
If the Constitution is silent on the issue, like on abortion, if the Constitution doesn't speak there, the Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling.
What we have had for 40 years, really since Earl Warren, is a Supreme Court that has stepped in and decided, well, we think this.
We think that there ought to be busing to achieve racial balance in schools, even though the Constitution didn't speak to that question.
And all this legislating that's been going on from the bench, you are correct.
If a ruling or a community's law or some sort of edict does conflict with the Constitution, that's where the Supreme Court is supposed to say so.
Otherwise, they shouldn't be coming in and imposing their will.
That's why I believe that it is important for conservatives to make it clear in defending Alito that they are defending the proper role for judges who are serving on the Supreme Court.
Thank you very much for clarifying this.
You guys are doing a great job.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate it, Joe.
To Scottsdale, Arizona, Dave, Dave, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
How are you?
Thanks for taking my call.
I just want to point out that this is the type of thing that we are going to get dragged into, these battles of whether Judge Alito feels a certain way and whether he approves of the search of a 10-year-old boy for drugs or guns.
The issue is not whether he approves of it personally.
The issue is, was the law violated?
Did he uphold the law?
Was the search legal?
That's all it is.
And if you ask Judge Alito personally, how do you feel about it?
You know, that's a different issue entirely.
Right, and his feelings aren't important.
You're exactly right.
And his feelings aren't important, just as your feelings aren't important, and my feelings aren't important.
If there isn't a constitutional issue, the Supreme Court shouldn't be involved here.
The reason the left is so determined to keep this expansive view of the role of the court is it's their fallback for getting everything done.
The default position for American liberals is to get the Supreme Court to mandate something because most of their goofy notions could never be approved by a state legislature or by a Congress.
Now, in this particular case with regard to the strip search, you're talking about whether or not a drug dealer should have been freed.
His conviction overturned because they strip searched a child.
Justice Alito, or in that case, Judge Alito, ruled that the conviction should not be overturned and that the police were not violating the Constitution, which is the only area in which we ought to be debating these things, whether or not there is a constitutional issue.
For a lot of Americans, all they care about is, do I agree with this or don't I agree with it?
So they've come up with this view that the Supreme Court is supposed to be this nine-member body that makes decisions that they like and they agree with.
That's not the role of the Supreme Court.
That's why we elect city councils.
It's why you elect county boards and school boards and state legislatures.
It's why we elect the president and a congress.
They are the ones that make those determinations and not to step into all of these other areas.
Thank you for the call, Dave.
To Texarkana, Texas, Alan.
Alan, you're on EIB.
Hey, Mark.
Great to talk to you.
I'm really impressed with your opening monologue.
I think it's right on.
There were two points I wanted to make and get your reaction.
Okay, real quickly, Alan.
First of all, every poll that I've seen since liberals live and die on polls, even the liberal ones that I've seen, have been showing that the overwhelming majority of the American people really are not happy with the liberal activist nature of the court.
And that's why I think you've got to debate it that way.
They will try to draw you into an argument over whether or not children should be strip searched.
The question is, do you want judges who are going to step in and overturn convictions because they find one little problem with something that they personally don't like?
That's not their role.
And we need to argue what the role of the court is and bring this fight on because our side can and should win.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
A number of liberal groups that are opposed to the nomination of Samuel Alito, primarily because of abortion, are now going to try to fight him on issues other than abortion.
They've got a problem on the abortion question.
In most instances, Alito's track record is pretty much where the American people are on that.
They can't find a particular ruling that would be extreme to use their definition on abortion.
So moving on to other areas.
For instance, on abortion.
He has ruled in a Pennsylvania case that with some exceptions, requiring married women to notify their husbands before obtaining abortions is acceptable.
There was a state law there that did say that in Pennsylvania, if a woman is going to have an abortion, she has to inform her husband of it.
Whether you agree with that or not, whether you agree with it or not, the law was valid and the law should have been allowed to stand.
And Alito's ruling is correct because the Constitution, and I've read it, because the Constitution does not say that a woman has a right to have an abortion without telling her husband.
So the people of Pennsylvania have a right to decide, even if we're going to accept that there's a constitutional right for an abortion, which there isn't.
But even if we accept that, determining by what the rules are with regard to abortion should be something that's decided by people at the state level and not by federal judges.
Now, in the instance of that particular ruling, I don't think they're going to attack him on it because I think most Americans think that that's reasonable.
I think they think that it is reasonable.
So they're going to try to find rulings or try to find opinions that he's issued in the past that somehow seem extreme or outside the mainstream.
It's not the role of a judge to decide if something is extreme or not.
It's the role of a judge to decide if it violates the Constitution of the United States.
That is their role.
Modesto, California, Kathleen.
Kathleen, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hello.
I was actually calling about the strip searching of a 10-year-old child.
A 10-year-old child may not be strip searched, but a drug dealer subordinate, of course, can be strip searched.
But what if they're the same person?
Well, then, of course, you know, it's the drug dealer subordinate that's being strip searched and not the 10-year-old child.
Well, but it was a 10-year-old child.
And in the ad they run, I'm sure they're not going to make that distinction.
They're going to make it look like Sam Alito is suggesting that we run around into all the public schools in America and make kids take the clothes off so we search them for drugs.
They will distort what the ruling stated.
The reason I ask you the question, though, is that Alito's determination should be based on what the Constitution says in that area.
Now, the Constitution does speak in the area of searches.
It does say that we as Americans are free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The role of the court in that case was to determine whether or not it was reasonable or unreasonable to search a child who is connected to a drug dealer.
And Judge Alito ruled that it was reasonable, given that drug dealers will often hide drugs on children.
I don't have a problem with that ruling or your discussion of it there, but I'm just saying that you were talking also about what liberals hear and what liberals think.
And people don't listen to the whole story and don't consider the whole case.
The ordinary everyday person doesn't.
And so, of course, I agree with them to jump off and say, no, a 10-year-old child should not be strip searched.
I understand their feeling, their emotion.
And then I think that our Constitution saying no unreasonable search and seizure says do not search a child, a 10-year-old child.
I think so.
Just so you understand what they're going to be doing here, they are going to try to cherry-pick his entire record and distort two or three or four rulings to make it appear as though he believes things that he does not.
Because if they deal with Samuel Alito for who he is, a brilliant jurist, eminently qualified, respected by his peers, if they deal with him on that level, he's confirmed.
They can't fight this thing over the real Sam Alito.
They've got to create a straw man, a fake Sam Alito, a guy who is so loony that he thinks we ought to be searching every child in America.
So they will create that false impression that is their tactic.
What our side needs to do is counter with the facts because I believe this fight can be won when people do know what's going on here.
Now, this was done with Bork.
Remember Teddy Kennedy's famous speech in 1986 in Robert Bork's America, the slaves would still be under the control of the plantation owners.
What they did with Bork was distort his entire track record of public service.
And at the time, President Reagan, who was distracted by Iran-Contra and the conservative movement, was not ready for that fight.
Well, we better be ready now.
You've got 55 Republican votes in the United States Senate.
You have a Republican president who has made an outstanding nominee, nomination to the Supreme Court.
If the left is going to bring on all of this distortion and they're going to try to debate the role of the court under false pretenses, then we've got to be ready to respond with facts and to state what the role of the court is.
In that particular case, the judge ruled that you were not violating the Constitution if you searched a child who was in the company of a drug dealer.
I think that ruling was appropriate.
Now, you may disagree, and there may be people out there who believe that that is an unreasonable search and seizure, but because he has that philosophy, should not be disqualifying from him to serve on the Supreme Court, because if you applied that test, is this reasonable?
To every liberal federal judge that's out there, none of them ever would have gotten on.
We have judges on federal courts who think that you shouldn't be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for heaven's sakes.
They're all confirmed.
Look at some of the rulings that have come from liberal justices on the Supreme Court that are way outside the American mainstream.
Yet they've been allowed to serve.
Thank you for the call, Kathleen.
Let's move to Columbus, Ohio.
Mike, Mike, you're on EIB.
Good afternoon, Mark.
How are you doing today?
I'm great.
Thank you.
Doing a good show.
Thank you.
Two things on the first caller left out a very important component of this when he started comparing.
He said Judge Alito's rulings would allow the police to stop anybody on the street and search them if they wanted to.
There's something called probable cause that was present when the drug case was going down with the police there.
They had a reasonable belief, as I think you stated, that there were drugs on the premises and that it's common for kids and girlfriends, spouses, significant others, whatever, to be used to carry the drugs.
So they're not going to get a probable cause ruling in their favor if the police decide to just start stopping people at random.
I understand that.
Here's where the danger comes in.
The left, and when I say the left, I'm referring to these specific groups that have made it their mission to stop Alito.
Nan Aaron has said, we'll do anything.
We'll do whatever it takes.
Here's the danger.
They probably love this discussion that we're having right now because they'd love the debate over Alito to be on strip searching children.
They would love to make that the debate.
The point that I am making here is that individual rulings, if they are based in the Constitution, are correct.
I do think that we need to change the subject in terms of how this thing is debated because right now we're taking their bait.
They're going to run these ads and say, Alito believes this, Alito believes that.
And the larger question needs to be, should a judge from the bench be deciding what he thinks or what she thinks, or should they be applying the law?
So I do think we do run into a trap if we start debating every one of those rulings and say, was this a good thing or was this a bad thing, as opposed to what the actual role of a Supreme Court justice is.
Thank you for the call.
The case that I love to apply in situations like this was the Casey Martin case.
Remember him?
He was the professional golfer who had a physical problem and he was unable to walk the golf course.
He wanted to play and ride along in a cart.
And the Professional Golf Association, which is an association, it's a private organization consisting of the members.
They have a rule.
The rule says that you've got to walk the course in PGA events.
Casey Martin was unable to walk the course.
He appealed to the PGA.
They wouldn't give him a waiver.
So he took his case into federal court and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that Casey Martin does have a right to play professional golf and ride in a cart while he plays on the golf course.
A lot of Americans thought that was a great ruling.
Here's this young man who is overcoming all sorts of physical problems, still able to play golf at a very, very high level.
And here these PGA guys were trying to deny him the right to play.
Why, that's wrong.
The ruling from the Supreme Court in that case was wrong.
They should not have said Casey Martin has a right to play professional golf while riding around in a cart.
Even if I think the rule of the PGA banning carts is wrong, it's not the role of the Supreme Court of the United States to be determining the rules of golf.
It's the role of the Professional Gulf Association to determine their rules because it's their pro-golf tour.
The Constitution doesn't speak on that issue.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be in the PGA if you can't walk the course.
If another golf tour, the senior PGA, which I think does allow carts, was to say, yeah, you can have a cart, they ought to be able to do that too.
We shouldn't be looking to the Supreme Court to fix everything that we don't agree with.
A conservative view of the role of the court is to apply the Constitution.
The reason why liberals are so determined to have an expansive role for the court is because they can't get most of their stuff done through the legislative process.
If this country was turned upside down and most Americans were liberal and most elected officials were liberal and all sorts of liberal public policy was being enacted, but the courts were conservative and the courts kept striking down this and striking down that.
For example, let's take abortion.
Imagine if every state in the Union passed legal abortion, that we were a completely pro-abortion nation and every state said abortion is legal.
But the Supreme Court stepped in and said, that's unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional to allow abortions.
You can't do it.
The left's view would be completely upside down.
Then they wouldn't be for liberal judges.
If the Supreme Court was striking down liberal legislation all over the place, they wouldn't then want an activist Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court consisted of conservatives that were running rampant, knocking down all these beautiful liberal public policy initiatives that the left has been able to have enacted, they would have a completely different view of the role of the court.
Their role for the court is very self-serving.
They can't get their stuff done through the ballot box.
They never win that way.
So they want to have a bunch of judges that aren't accountable to anyone who serve for life come in and make all these liberal initiatives mandated from on high.
But it's all about that being the only way in which they can get their stuff enacted.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I want you to imagine something.
I want you to imagine that the United States Supreme Court struck down the income tax code as unconstitutional.
Supreme Court said that the only way you can have an income tax is if there's one rate, you have a flat tax, which I, by the way, support.
This came in and struck down everything Congress has done with regard to the income tax code.
Threw out the progressivity, meant that the rich should be taxed at the same rate as the poor, meant that the poor would have to pay income taxes.
And everybody was paying at the same percentage.
And that was the Supreme Court's ruling.
And they simply said the Congress can't tinker with it.
The Congress and the President can't set different rates.
They can't create exemptions for the exemptions.
They can't do anything.
The left would go crazy.
They would go crazy.
Why, this is a windfall for the rich.
What do you mean you justices are coming in here and determining that we can have an income tax code that taxes people of higher incomes at a higher level?
They would say that's terrible.
Even though I agree that we ought to have a flat tax, I don't think that ruling from the Supreme Court would be correct because the Constitution does not speak on the issue of where income tax rates are or how the code should be set up.
If that is what the Supreme Court would do, if the Supreme Court, activist, which is what the left is looking for, if the Supreme Court was so activist that it struck down one of the great achievements of the American left, an income tax code that has rates that keep going up as incomes go up, the left would have a different view of the role of the Supreme Court.
Give you another one.
Imagine if the Supreme Court struck down Medicare.
Supreme Court just struck down Medicare.
You can't make citizens pay for health care of elderly citizens.
It's illegal.
It violates the Constitution.
And they had no basis for it.
Just as the court had no basis when it said abortion was a right, that's not in the Constitution either.
Supreme Court came in and struck down Medicare.
The left wouldn't like that because they would disagree with the ruling.
The Supreme Court shouldn't be issuing rulings based on what you like or what I like.
You know who's supposed to do what you like or I like?
The president is supposed to do that.
That's why we elect them.
Congress is supposed to do that.
That's why we elect them.
Your city council is supposed to do that.
That's why you elect your alderman or your councilman.
Not the Supreme Court.
By giving the Supreme Court the ability to make all of these decisions, you are preempting the elected representative of the people, elected representatives of the people, and you are disempowering yourself.
That's how we've got to frame this debate.
Now, as it happens, the Supreme Court, when it has been activist, has always been activist from the left.
And the left, therefore, has a desire to continue to have that philosophy in place.
The problem is, is that this could turn on them, too.
If we had a Supreme Court consisting of a bunch of right-wingers that got up there and struck down every single liberal social initiative that has ever occurred, they'd go crazy over it.
Instead, we've had the reverse.
We're an activist Supreme Court and activist federal judges are running amok, saying you can't say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Who knows when they're going to mandate gay marriage?
And doing all of this legislation from the bench.
The reason abortion is so divisive in this country is because the American people don't have the ability to affect public policy on it.
Every time we pass a law that deals with abortion, the Supreme Court strikes it down, or a federal judge strikes it down somewhere.
So people are mad because they see no ability to actually enact their own public policy.
Our country is premised on us ruling ourselves, and that means the people we elect, not judges who are appointed, should be determining public policy.
And that's how we've got to fight back when Nan Aaron and her crowd run all these ads saying that Judge Alito wants to strip search 10-year-old children.
I'm Mark Gulling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
You want to make a liberal crazy?
Just say the words either Halliburton or Walmart.
They start foaming at the mouth.
Story from my home area of Milwaukee.
Jimmy Carter was in the area last week for a book signing.
He's got a new book out.
I was the president, believe it or not, or something like that.
So he had a book signing.
Does he hold the book signing in some impoverished central city neighborhood?
No, he goes to a very suburban community, West Bend, Wisconsin.
You know where Jimmy Carter had his book signing?
He did it at a Walmart.
The old hypocrite.
▲
Export Selection