Rush Limbaugh Program - July 10, 2009, Friday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:29

July 10, 2009, Friday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It is the second hour of the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Mark Davis.
	Thank you.
	Johnny from WBAP Dallas, Fort Worth.
	Long time limb affiliate.
	I've had the honor of being the show before Rush since 1994.
	Hopefully providing that quality lead-in.
	And uh to deliver a service back to the Rush Limbaugh Show after all he's done for our station and all he's done for our country is uh an enormous, enormous privilege.
	Got a bunch of things to talk about with all of you at 1 800-282-2882, a little week in review as any Friday talk show probably ought to be.
	And a lot of calls here coming up.
	But first, an opportunity to speak with some folks also arises on today's show.
	One hour from now, polster Scott Rasmussen will talk about that presidential index, which is currently at a minus five for President Obama.
	We'll find out what that means.
	But let's go to the real nuts and bolts of uh of opposing that agenda, and where does that happen?
	It happens on Capitol Hill.
	And it is a joy to welcome Congressman from Indiana, the chairman of the House Republican Conference out of Indiana's sixth district, the Honorable Mike Pence.
	How you doing, sir?
	Hey, Mark.
	Great.
	You're sounding great, and uh mega dudos to you, my friend.
	It it is my joy.
	The last time I talked uh to Mike Pence, we were on the same stage at an NRCC uh round table, National Republican Congressional Committee headed by uh by my buddy and yours, Pete Sessions from here in Texas, talking some fairness doctrine.
	Before we get on to fighting the Obama agenda in 14 other ways, I think I sense there's been some headway on that.
	We still have to really, really oppose the uh the code language of localization and these corpor these excuse me, local advisory boards and things like that.
	But where do you sense that battle?
	Let's put our finger on the pulse of that since obviously listeners and hosts share a certain concern.
	Well, let me say, Mark, um I think uh it's very timely that you raise the issue with me.
	I literally walked out of a meeting fifteen minutes ago um about an amendment that Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon and I are bringing on Monday, uh a broadcaster freedom amendment uh on an appropriations bill that's coming next week.
	And we're not only going to give Congress uh an opportunity uh as uh as we did a couple of years back, uh, to deny any funding to bring the fairness doctrine back.
	We're also gonna be bringing language to do away with the fairness doctrine by stealth.
	But I'll tell you, for anyone within the sound of my voice uh who cherishes uh Rush Limbaugh uh and the broadcast freedom that makes great voices like Mark Davis possible around America.
	We urge every American uh to call their congressman today, uh Monday, email them over the weekend, and tell them give the broadcaster freedom amendment an up or down vote on the floor of the Congress next week.
	The Financial Services Appropriations Bill is where the FCC gets funded, oddly enough.
	We're bringing the amendment next week.
	But the Democrats have uh developed a pattern, Mark uh this summer in the spending bills of denying Republican amendments, denying open participation.
	So we're gonna have to go to the committee on the hill that allows amendments, uh file that amendment Monday.
	But uh I expect if uh our Democrat colleagues hear from the American people starting today and over the weekend that they we want an up or down vote on the broadcaster freedom amendment.
	We'll get that amendment ruled in order.
	And as it did two years ago, I believe it'll pass.
	Every time freedom gets an up or down vote on the floor of the people's house, freedom always wins.
	But it's not gonna win if we don't have an up or down vote on the broadcaster freedom amendment.
	We're filing it Monday, but m every single member of Congress needs to hear uh from the people that they serve that they want that up or down vote.
	You know, um liberty came to the floor of the House of Representatives in the form of cap and trade, and it didn't prevail so well the other day.
	Well, I'll tell you what, uh you know, I uh I'm a big fan of the movie uh Apollo 11, or excuse me, Apollo 13.
	They haven't made the Apollo 11 one.
	Eleven was the prequel.
	Yeah, uh the prequel.
	Uh but you know, the Apollo 13 movie, that famous quote uh from Jim Lovell who described Apollo 13 as a successful failure.
	You know, I gotta tell you, uh I was never prouder of uh House Republicans uh than I've been over the last month as we we turned that debate from all of this talk about you know the the environment and and uh and climate change and green jobs, and we were able to expose the cap and trade bill as nothing more than a national energy tax that was going to raise the cost uh of uh living for every American by thousands of dollars per household.
	With the reason why that bill only passed by a couple of votes, uh 219, I think to two twelve, uh, was because uh Republicans and conservatives on Capitol Hill took our case to the American people, and I I believe we've got a fighting chance to stop that legislation in the Senate and bring forward something like the American Energy Act that uh that I helped to develop uh in the Republican conference that says yes to more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas,
	yes to more conservation through tax incentives and credits, and says he says yes to wind and solar and a hundred new nuclear power plants in the next twenty years.
	We can achieve energy independence in a way that creates jobs and and uh and achieves a a cleaner environment.
	We we don't need a national energy tax.
	We lost the vote, but Mark, I believe we won the argument and we've set the table for the Senate to stop that national energy tax in its tracks.
	It it did result in a lot of light being shown on the on the truth about cap and tax, cap and trade, it's known as officially, but it is cap and tax.
	If you go about chronicling the you started a sentence the reason it uh it it passed so narrowly, one of the reasons it passed so narrowly is I believe uh uh eight actual Republicans who are are not as hip to the liberty thing as you and I are, what ought to happen to them.
	Look, I think every member of Congress uh ought to be judged on the totality of their record.
	Um I strongly disagreed with my colleagues who saw their way clear to vote uh for the cap and trade bill.
	But make no mistake about it, this is the agenda of the Obama administration and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
	They drove that bill to the floor, and I will tell you, whether those eight Republicans voted for it or not, I believe in my heart of hearts, Nancy Pelosi would have gotten her votes to get that bill done on the floor of the Congress.
	Now that's not letting anybody off.
	We have an honest difference of opinion on the issue.
	But uh, I gotta tell you uh that uh having been here on Capitol Hill for more than eight years, I have never seen the kind of heavy-handed legislative tactics uh that we have seen uh under Democrat control uh over the last two years, and never more heavy-handed than than during this cap and trade debate.
	Do you think as we look, you know, toward the the rest of 09 and into the very important year of 2010 that the the I'm gonna have Scott Rasmussen on pollster like one hour from right now, and he will chronicle you know what what it's it's just the latest snapshot, any poll is a snapshot.
	But there are now now more people who say they strongly oppose President Obama than strongly favor him.
	Thirty-seven to thirty-two.
	In the middle are other folks who are still trying to figure things out.
	Do you believe that from cap and tax to the the uh noxiousness of Obamacare and the socialized medicine that it will take us toward, to the environmental extremism and otherwise, to the absurdities of the uh uh of uh of the stimulus.
	Is the tide turning somewhat?
	I don't want to invest too much, but I also don't want to ignore the fact that maybe folks are starting to wake up and smell the coffee a little.
	Well, I I I love the I love the panoramic view you took there.
	Because I I while I think we won the R we lost the vote, but we won the argument on the national energy tax, the cap and trade bill.
	I don't think the shift you're seeing in public attitudes about the administration and about Democrats in Congress is all about that bill.
	I think it's a cumulative weight, as you just described very well, of this administration, this Democrat Congress, and frankly, let's be fair, uh, of the last administration, who believe that we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing America.
	The American people know better.
	And all they've seen from the end of the last administration with the massive Wall Street bailout and uh a doubling of the national debt, uh they've seen this administration and Democrats in Congress kind of take us from bad to worse when it comes to this economy when it comes to controlling the size and scope of government.
	A trillion dollar stimulus bill.
	I mean, the numbers are extraordinary.
	I spoke on the House floor yesterday morning.
	People can could check out uh our remarks on the web if they want the data points.
	Trillion dollar stimulus bill is based in February.
	The President said if if if we don't borrow a trillion dollars from our children and grandchildren that that unemployment was going to go from 7.5% to 8%, it's now 9.5%, the highest in 26 years.
	Unemployment has risen by 1.96 million jobs loss since the stimulus bill was signed.
	But remarkably, the President of the United States said a week ago that the recovery bill had done its job.
	I mean, I it's it's astonishing to me.
	But I really do think there is a growing sense that the answer the Democrats have for what ails this country is more borrowing, more spending, more bailouts, a national energy tax, and now a government takeover of health care.
	And I think the American people are saying enough is enough.
	We know how to get America working again, fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and tax relief for working family, small businesses, and family farms, and Republicans are ready to take that fight to the American people in the next 18 months.
	Mike Pence joins us, Congressman of Indiana, just room for one final brief question, Mike.
	Are you calling us from a bar?
	What is going on in that room?
	I'm actually calling you from the cloak room during a vote series.
	I'm I'm just off the House of Representatives.
	I'm teasing.
	I'm teasing.
	I have to.
	Yeah, it's right off the floor of the House.
	And uh uh it kind of reminded me the last time I had the privilege of being on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	It was in the middle of the oil, the gas price protest last August from the cloak room, so it's something of a tradition.
	It's funny, uh and I invoked uh again Pete Sessions, who heads the NRCC, and by by his invitation I get a chance to come to, I think it was President Bush's second State of the Union or something, and just walking around and and hanging with you guys and walking the halls is just an amazing thing.
	And not in a cloakroom, but there's a kind of a lounge that's just off the house floor up on sort of the concourse level.
	Yeah.
	And right about it's like thirty minutes before the State of the Union, and we walk in there, and there's like 40 or 50 members of Congress, and he's introducing me to all you know, his buddies, and some of these folks are familiar faced to me and some were not.
	But it was just such a convivial atmosphere, just a bunch of uh of nice folks Republicans, Democrats, everybody was in there.
	And um it it's it's just uh it's an interesting life you guys lead.
	And I I wonder about some of the conversations that are had in in during some of the downtime.
	Uh during when you're just sort of, you know, decompressing with your your your fellow members there and uh i i in for the case of this final question in in the Republican conference.
	I is there a general upbeat mood that uh that despite this onslaught of the Obama agenda that maybe their actual audacity to borrow that word again is something that has sufficiently awakened enough people that we might really be able to get something done here in 2010.
	Maybe not winning the majority back, but at least taking a big step in that direction.
	Hey, uh look, there's no question, Mark, that as usual you got your finger on it.
	The mood has changed here.
	Uh Republicans are in the fight when every single Republican on Capitol Hill voted against the so-called stimulus bill.
	Every single Republican on Capitol Hill opposed the president's budget that'll triple the national debt in the next ten years.
	Uh and almost every single Republican dug in against that massive national energy tax with cap and trade.
	I I just want to tell you, our guys are in the fight, but what we know is that uh there's there is a truism that we've been relearning here, and that is a minority in Congress plus the American people equals a majority.
	And my my challenge to your millions and millions of Russia's listeners out there, Mark, is to get engaged, get in the fight.
	My guys back in Indiana are going to MikePence.com and signing up as never before.
	People need to go to GOP.gov and sign up and get plugged in, contact either the and the conservative congressman or the conservative candidate in your congressional district and get behind him.
	If the American people will step up on behalf of limited government, fiscal discipline, traditional moral values, we will take this Congress back and this country back in 2010.
	Serving the sixth district of Indiana and with it the United States as a whole.
	Mike Pence, always an honor, man.
	Thank you very, very much.
	Thank you, Mark.
	God bless you.
	Same to you.
	That's uh that's a champ of a guy right there.
	All righty.
	Let us pause, come back, dive in.
	Anything in uh the QA with Mike that uh gives you some thoughts you want to share.
	1 800 282 2882 is the place to share them Because after all, it's the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in, and we're all back together right after this.
	It is the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Rush will return for the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	So for the rest of today, it's you and me.
	Mark Davis out of WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
	Joy to be here.
	I know Mr. Stein and Mr. Belling, the the other marks on the uh on the uh on the relief bench are grateful for your listenership this week, and I enjoyed hearing them, and thanks a lot for hanging out with me today.
	Rush is back on Monday.
	Always go to Rush Limbaugh.com for the latest in Russia's world, and the phone number, of course, is 1-800-28282.
	Let's go to those phones and see uh see what is there.
	Thanks to Congressman Mike Pence for joining us.
	Polster Scott Rasmussen will help us uh take a look at some poll numbers that may be starting to tilt uh away from the White House a little.
	He'll join us at the beginning of next hour.
	If you're just joining us, uh we had a a bunch of different issues in the first hour, and one of them was the idea uh that a report done for the Pentagon has come out with uh that suggests a smoking ban in the military.
	Uh the argument for it is that a healthier military is a good thing.
	Uh that's true on its face.
	And yet, uh for me and for most of the callers we took, uh i there's just something that seems wrong about telling that uh tell it tell it that that soldier that he can't uh blaze up a Marlboro after a day of of dodging bullets in Afghanistan.
	I mean, wow.
	Um it's that's just tricky.
	That's that's just tricky for me.
	And then the and then the the report also said that let's have uh a smoke-free requirement uh for new recruits and new officers.
	And I asked then, and I'll ask now, uh because I I would love to think that the coming years will result in a need for l uh fewer rather than more deployments out in the war on terror, because uh hopefully it's working uh and Iraq is stable and Afghanistan becomes stable.
	That that is my great wish.
	It may not happen.
	And uh and hopefully we'll at some point have a president who recognizes that the war on terror must be fought conscientiously and continuously until it succeeds, and that means we might have a need for a whole lot more uh officers and a whole lot more soldiers, and I just don't think I'm in the mood to blow a bunch of them off because uh because they smoke.
	So anyway, there was that.
	And boy, I don't know if the gentleman has a chance of getting back in, but I'll tell you what that there was a guy who's on a cell phone, and you know how cell phones are.
	He was a Marine and he was for the smoking ban.
	Let me do the following, in fact.
	Let me do the following.
	We're gonna go to some ancillary issues and some just outright other stuff.
	On on the military smoking ban, I think I've properly hopefully uh uh described the reason to oppose it.
	If you think the smoking ban in the military is a good idea, get with me and and we'll we'll hash that out.
	Meanwhile, though, on something similar, let's go to Berwin, Illinois, and Dan, Mark Davis on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Nice to have you.
	Hi, Mark, how's it going?
	Uh I have a question for you, and that would be if you are against the smoking ban in the military, and last hour you said you're all about liberty.
	I'd like to know why you authored a column in I think the Dallas Morning News in favor of sobriety checkpoints.
	Right.
	Absolutely fair question.
	Uh I write a column on the Dallas Morning News every uh every Wednesday, go to Dallas News.com/slash opinion.
	And there had been a controversy locally about sobriety checkpoints.
	I do not feel they are a requirement.
	I I wouldn't say that a city must have them, but if they want them, I'm okay with them with the conditions that usually accompany them.
	In problem areas where there tends to be a lot of drunk driving, uh, where it is thoroughly random.
	We're not uh, you know, uh picking, you know, certain character types out or anything like that.
	Uh I'm I'm totally all right with that.
	Because you're in the heavily already heavily regulated environment of the road.
	It's not like somebody coming into your house.
	And so I'm I'm perfectly fine with that.
	Why aren't you?
	Or if you're not.
	Pardon me?
	Why why aren't you, if I presume that you are I don't think it's a good idea because I think it's just another infringement on our con our constitutional rights at one of the things that we're gonna do.
	Well, that's nonsense.
	Exceptions to the Constitution that the Supreme Court has has allowed.
	I mean, you you don't like the I mean, I mean there there's no uh there's no constitutional basis for this whatsoever.
	Um unless one thinks it's an unreasonable search.
	Uh I mean there's a long list of things that we just don't want.
	There's a long list of of things that we just don't think are a good idea.
	I I th the smoking bans are insane.
	Having government tell a restaurant what its smoking rules can be is patently insane.
	But it's constitutional.
	If a government is stupid enough to have one, uh if a city's dumb enough to have them, they can have them.
	Um sobriety checkpoints.
	Uh if if the Fourth Amendment is one of my favorites, but it's a tricky one, isn't it?
	It's a tricky one.
	You know why?
	Unreasonable search and seizure.
	Well, what's reasonable to somebody might be unreasonable to somebody else, as I guess we've just learned.
	All righty.
	Uh more on these and other issues as we continue.
	Mark Davis in for Rush on this Friday, and we will continue.
	Don't move.
	Banging the gong of liberty across the talk radio landscape.
	It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in Rush is back on Monday.
	All right, let's let's take some things in some directions here, shall we?
	Let me uh throw out a few things from the week gone by and some things that are as fresh as today's headlines.
	And then coming up at the top of the next hour, pollster Scott Rasmussen will talk to him about his company's latest findings uh about a growing number of people who say they strongly oppose the president versus a somewhat winnowing number uh of folks who say they strongly support him.
	And we'll talk about who are the folks in the middle and how important are they.
	And I'm all and whenever we talk to pollsters, I'm always interested in methodology about it, because I know many of you are uh interested in or suspicious of the uh the methodology, and we've all seen the uh the the poll that is clearly designed to get uh an expected result or a desired result.
	And uh Rasmussen's I've just always struck me as one of the best, and uh even when they've delivered results I didn't like.
	And so we'll talk to Scott about that between now and then, though.
	Let me see, let me see.
	Um you know what uh what Monday's gonna be.
	Just are you bracing yourselves for Monday?
	Um you it's hard to predict the future, but hang on a second.
	I believe I know what Rush is gonna be talking about on Monday, because by the time the Rush Limbaugh Show starts on Monday, featuring Rush himself, I'm guessing there will be already plenty of golden audio from the Sotomayor hearings.
	Yes, it is the adventure that lies ahead for however many days it takes the Senate.
	Well, first the Judiciary Committee to figure out what it's gonna do, as if that's in doubt, and then the full Senate to figure out what it's going to do, and even that may not be in doubt.
	When you get and and this this is a development from the week gone by, uh you've lately you've had Mitch McConnell, the most powerful Republican in America, uh, as the Senate minority leader.
	And um Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
	These guys have been saying some stuff that uh gives a fellow hope.
	Uh that maybe some people mean it when they talk about a Supreme Court that needs to contain people who are not activists, and if I may throw in, not racists, as Judge Sotomayor clearly is.
	Now there's they're big-time racists, small time racists, people who are racist a whole lot, and people who are racist just a little, and you can place her wherever on that spectrum you like.
	But if the words come out of your mouth, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion, parentheses, than a gringo.
	That is racist.
	And and I I tap dance, not tap dance, I I tolerated the tap dance for a little bit of people who said, well, you know, sometimes you can say racist things and not really be a racist.
	Well, guess what?
	No, you can't.
	I'm not going to suggest that this is some seething, some woman filled with seething uh uh uh hatred and mistrust of uh of uh of uh uh white people or anybody else.
	But th there's I'm sorry, it's racist.
	If during, you know, the Alito hearings you said, you know, as a white guy, I just kind of think I'm a little quicker on the uptake than maybe some blacks and Hispanics.
	Just me talking, just say it.
	How long would that have lasted?
	It's racist.
	Anyway, though, back to the folks in the Senate.
	So you've got some people and you wonder how it's going to go.
	Is the Senate gonna roll over?
	Are they gonna rubber stamp Judge Sotomayor?
	Um and I don't know the answer to that.
	I guess we'll see.
	But for a while there, one of the really energizing voices uh and the reason it was sort of energizing is because you don't always know exactly where this guy's gonna go.
	And a truly good guy out of South Carolina, that's Lindsey Graham, who expressed exactly the right concerns about Judge Sotomayor.
	But now, a quote from this past week involves Senator Graham saying, you know, about the only way she's not gonna be on the court is if she really performs badly in the hearings, and you know, I can sort of see myself voting for her.
	What?
	Now I don't expect that Lindsey Graham will be the only Republican voting for her.
	Uh one can hope what one hopes, but for whatever reason, there will be Republicans who vote for Judge Sotomayor.
	Okay.
	They have the freedom to do that.
	And we have the freedom to react in a certain way.
	You may react how you wish.
	Here's how I'm gonna react.
	For any Republican member of the United States Senate who votes for Judge Sotomayor to reach the Supreme Court, I don't ever, and I mean ever want to hear from that senator ever one syllable about judicial activism,
	about the need for the Supreme Court to interpret law and not craft it, about the need to honor the Constitution and the founder's intent.
	I don't need to hear one stinking word on those subjects from any Republican senator who votes for Judge Sotomayor.
	She is a woman of considerable accomplishment.
	She's been a judge for a long time, been an attorney for a long time.
	I'm as energized as the next person by the history of the first Latina.
	That's all great.
	Just like I thought it was really cool we had a black president until I found out exactly how deep the disaster would be.
	So that's fine.
	I'm all about the history.
	That's great.
	But sometimes you've got to actually look at what's in the head and hearts of these people making all this history.
	So that's just it.
	If if a Republican wants to vote for Judge Sotomayor, you knock yourself out.
	Go right ahead.
	But I had better not hear one peep from a Republican voting for her ever again about sticking to the constitutional precepts, about honoring the founding fathers by honoring the words they gave us, about judicial activism in general.
	Because the firefighters case in particular shows that this is a woman who is more than happy to make stuff up.
	More than happy to make the law bend to what she thinks is fair.
	And for the millionth time, I can't believe I have to say this.
	And for many of you in the audience, I don't.
	And you know, good for you.
	But uh for plenty I do, and others need to say it.
	There's a reason why that statue of Lady Justice, the Justice Statute, it is blindfolded.
	It's blindfolded.
	You know why?
	Because it doesn't matter what color anybody is when they're in court, it doesn't matter what socioeconomic status anybody is when they're in court, it doesn't matter if anybody's gay, it doesn't matter if anybody's anything.
	What matters is what side are they on and which side most honors the law.
	Which side deserves to win when the scales of the law are applied?
	And President Obama did us the favor of telegraphing this to us.
	I want a Supreme Court justice who you know knows what it's like to have the system not work for you.
	What?
	What?
	And the supposition that the the court is there, and I'll have this, that the court is there for the little guy.
	No, it's not.
	It's there for the little guy if the little guy Is on the side of the law of all the cases that will come before the Supreme Court, of all the cases that will come before any court.
	Sometimes, maybe even most times, the little guy will have been screwed.
	And will have, and and the law needs to help him out.
	And if he's on the side of the law, I hope the law does help him out.
	And we can all feel good about that, da-da-go down the road.
	Sometimes the little guy is an idiot.
	Sometimes the lawsuit is frivolous.
	Sometimes the little guy does not have the law on his side.
	You know who has the law on its side sometimes?
	Maybe it's a big nasty company.
	Maybe a big seething mega corporation is in court.
	And you know what?
	Maybe it's right sometimes.
	On the times that it's right, it deserves to win.
	And in big company versus the little guy, if you go in thinking, well, you know, it's the little guy.
	Or it's a big nasty company.
	And how do I feel about little guys and big nasty companies?
	Forget how you feel about little guys and big nasty companies.
	The definition of being a judge requires that you forget how you feel, that you completely subjugate and suppress and shelve and put aside for the purpose of your decision how you feel about the folks before you, the parties before you.
	That's why the statue is blind.
	People like Sonia Sotomayor peel that blindfold down so we can see, uh-huh, what color are the people before me.
	Because in the firefighter case, she was okay with getting rid of the entire promotional exam because black guys didn't pass it.
	Well, I'm really sorry that black guys didn't pass it.
	I'm really, really sorry.
	So we're gonna deny promotions to the white guys, and ironically, the Hispanic guys who did?
	That's insane.
	And and we're gonna put this on the supreme court.
	Now, granted, she won't be the only one.
	She won't be the only one.
	There's already uh and and obviously in replacing suitor, it's not like there's a whole complexion change there.
	It's not like there's a whole complexion change.
	There are people there from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Stephen Breyer to others who are right there with her, and and from Roe v.
	Wade on, fashioning all kinds of law, not based on what the law says or what the Constitution says, but just on the way they think that things ought to be.
	You know, and and just to show that I'm willing to apply this to myself, I don't want Roe v.
	Wade overturned because I'm pro-life.
	My personal pro-lifeness is irrelevant to what I should want for f in Roe versus Wade.
	Because I'm pro-life or somebody else's pro-choice.
	That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm talking about putting aside.
	The Constitution is not a vehicle through which your political your desired political result is brought about.
	I want Roe v.
	Wade overturned so the Constitution can be honored.
	How's the Constitution honored?
	By every state having its own abortion laws.
	Period.
	That means in some states those abortion laws will be restrictive, as I'd like them to be.
	In some states, those abortion laws will be enormously permissive, which I will lament.
	But that's what the Constitution requires.
	The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
	That the Tenth Amendment itself says that it, you know what, if we don't mention it in here, it's kind of left to the people and the states.
	Should be true of abortion, should be true of gay marriage.
	And there are two kinds of folks, those that either get that or don't.
	Those that don't have no business on the Supreme Court.
	Unfortunately, we already have them.
	And we don't need any more.
	So let me break, come back, take your calls on this, and whatever else you want to do.
	Monday's gonna be huge.
	We'll find out uh what's going on with the uh Senate uh the Senate Judiciary Committee uh confirmation hearings on Judge Sotomayor, but I'll just just let those words uh sort of rattle around all weekend if you wish.
	I mean, I know it's just it's it's just me the fill-in guy, and uh and you'll get a whole bunch of Russia's opinions on this on Monday, but uh I'd better not hear one thing from any Republican senator who votes for Judge Sotomayor.
	Not one thing from those senators ever again about the founders and their words and how important it is to cleave to those words and how important it is to honor the Constitution because this woman shreds the Constitution on her political whim.
	And so that's just it.
	Are there are Republicans free to vote for?
	Of course they are.
	Of course they are.
	But I mean it.
	Not one peep from you if you do about judicial activism ever, ever, again.
	Deal.
	Deal.
	So uh anyway.
	Anyway.
	All right, 1 800, 282-2882, 1-800-282-2882-Rush Limbaugh.com on the web.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in for Rush.
	Let's do some calls and let's do them next.
	It's the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in.
	Let's do a little telephone action coming up top of the next hour.
	Pulster Scott Rasmussen, and then we'll continue with anything else you want.
	I got some fresh stuff to bring in, some other things that have been in progress.
	It is easy for me, and was easy for me a moment ago to lay down this edict.
	Republican senators better not vote for Sotomayor, and if you do, you better not uh lecture me any more about judicial activism.
	That is harder for some senators than others.
	And on that point, let's go to Savannah, Georgia.
	Mark Hi, Mark Davis in for Rush.
	What you got?
	Uh, Mark, it's a pleasure to be on the show with you.
	Um today's USA Today points out that a lot of uh a lot of Hispanics and Latinos, they strongly support Sotomayor.
	And it kind of puts a lot of these Republican senators in a bind if they vote against her because their very jobs might be on the line.
	So I wanted to have your thoughts on that.
	That is you are there.
	That is a genius point and and the answer it's is once again easy to say, and it will be hard for senators to hear.
	I can't imagine anybody having a tougher uh ride in exactly what you've talked about than the two Republicans who are in the state in which I sit in Texas, and that's K. Bailey Hutchison and John Corning.
	Um do I feel the same way about them?
	Yes, I do.
	And I have to, because if I tell a senator, if I'd have if I'd have sort of augmented that that segment a few moments ago, if I'd have laid down that that principle, that rock solid principle of you'd better not lecture me about judicial activism if you vote for Sotomayor.
	But you know, if you're in a state with a lot of Hispanics, I understand.
	Go ahead, do what you gotta do.
	Good Lord, man, that's what got us into this trouble.
	That kind of wimpiness, that kind of identity politics.
	And I know, I know, I know these guys look in the mirror, and and and these women and men uh look at uh the way the Hispanic population properly is enthused about Judge Sotomayor.
	And that is why I would call on those people to they may need to explain themselves at length multiple times, and tell these folks I cannot wait for a Hispanic nominee that I can vote for.
	I cannot wait to have uh uh a nominee uh uh, you know, the the the first whatever to be whatever, but the first turnstile has got I mean, in black president.
	Anybody who voted for uh voted for Barack Obama just because he's black, you know, uh who say, well, I think I disagree with him about most things, but black guys, so let's do that.
	Well, yeah, how's that working out for you right now?
	So it I mean, I I can't wait till we have a black president, too.
	You know, but I'm hoping to God it's uh the uh until we have another black president now, and I'm hoping it's the somebody who actually believes in what I believe.
	So I I know it's e he's easy for me to say, hard for these folks to do, so hard that they may not in fact be able to do it.
	But if they don't, I'm afraid I would say exactly the same thing.
	Anybody voting for Judge Sotomayor uh uh to uh for job preservation, someone who puts their own survival in the political climate of the moment ahead of the Constitution, I just don't have a lot of use for.
	So and uh don't mean to be harsh, but that's that's just it.
	And I and I love Senator Corner and I love uh Senator Hutchison.
	Senator Hutchinson's gonna come try to be governor uh of our state, and we'll see uh well that's well it th this vote has as ramifications that that stretch long and far and wide, but uh my opinion does not change one molecule because the senator happens to have some Hispanic constituents uh who are all uh jazzed up about uh Hispanic nominee.
	Dr. King's wish was for us to live in a world where that doesn't matter so much anymore.
	So let's help bring it about by making Judge Sotomayor's views more important than her ethnicity.
	How about that?
	Mark Davis, be right back.
	Two hours down and one to go on the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Mark Davis, filling in from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
	Let me give you a little thumbnail of how the next hour's gonna go.
	We're gonna open it up and talk poll numbers with Scott Rasmussen, one of the best in the business.
	Then I'm gonna tell you about an interview that's coming out in the Sunday New York Times magazine with the aforementioned Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	Not one but two shocking things in it.
	And Prince Charles says, Prince Charles, I always go to him for clarity, says we have 96 months to save the world.
	Thank you, Prince Charles.

▲