All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
March 26, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi folks, how are you?
Great to have you here.
I need to tell you here at the outset of the program, this is a weird, weird day.
There is something, all of my synapses or whatever they are up there are not firing.
This is one of those days where no matter what somebody says to me, it confuses me.
No matter what, I see it's not making sense.
I have had people firing tweets and emails about the oral arguments of the Corland gay marriage, and none of it makes any sense.
I finally have a Bloomberg story here on that that that finally does make sense of it, but it took me about 20 minutes when it should have taken 10 seconds.
And then I looked around at some other stuff and there's a bunch of some soundbites that don't make any sense to me.
And when it doesn't make sense, it's hard for me to explain to you why I'm talking to you about something.
For example, my instincts say, don't do this.
But I'm gonna do it anyway, just just for the sake of illustration.
The first two sound bites, did you remember, by the way, telephone number, you know who this is, it's L Rush What's 800 28282.
Do you remember back in February, there is a mayor's race in in Stanford, Connecticut.
Now normally that wouldn't be on our radar here.
Nothing against Stanford, but we're bigger than that here at the EIB network.
But what happened there is that the Democrat candidate for mayor accused me of endorsing the Republican candidate when I had not.
But he went on to treat an endorsement by me as something that ought not be permitted in the United States.
Because I'm so vile and so extreme.
Well, it turns out I had not endorsed anybody race.
I didn't know there was a mayoral election going on up there, and I had never heard of the two contestants.
The Democrat is uh some clown named what is his a William Tong, he's a state representative, and the Republican is a former Lieutenant Governor, Michael Fidelli.
And the Tong guy, well, here, let's let's play the first soundbite.
This is from um WTIC eyeball TV, Fox Connecticut News at 4.
And not to be confused with Fox Connecticut News at 4 30 or Fox Connecticut News at 5 or 11.
This was Fox Connecticut News at 4.
And the infobay was Lori Perez, and this was her report.
Michael Fidel announced his campaign for mayor of Stanford.
He's already got his first endorsement, Rush Limbaugh, the controversial right-wing radio host who's made headlines for his argumentative statements is publicly supporting Fidelity's candidacy.
But Democratic candidate William Tong says Limbaugh's endorsement has no place in this election and is calling on Fidelity to renounce it immediately.
Fidelity has not yet responded.
Well, let's be a Fidelity probably is clueless.
This is back in February 26.
I not endorsed anybody.
I never do endorse in Mayor Old Red.
Don't endorse, period.
Um Tong guy was clearly in panic mode because an endorsement from me works.
But then this infobabe goes on to say the controversial right-wing radio host who's made headlines for his argumentative statement.
In the first place, I am not controversial to any of you.
Every one of you listening are 94%, you agree.
There's no controversy here.
At any rate, now I'm I'm well known for my argumentative statements.
I don't argue.
I debate and win.
Anyway.
So this Fidelity guy is everybody's running, whoa, whoa whoa, whoa, an endorsement from Limbo.
Well, we can't have that.
Why, that's not American.
That shouldn't be permitted.
And then later on, everybody figured out that that uh this this tong clown was Absolutely totally wrong.
So Sunday morning, back in Hartford, WTIC TV's the real story, not to be confused with the half story.
Not to be confused with the unreal story.
This is their show called the real story.
The guest is the Democrat Mayor of Candidate, this clown William Tong.
And during a discussion about Tong's idiotic belief that I endorsed his opponent, Fideli, the co-host Al Tursey, not to be confused with Laurie Perez of Fox Connecticut News at four.
The uh the the anchor here, Al Terzi said, this thing about Rush Limbaugh endorsing him, Fidelli.
It was really on a fan page.
Going forward, how are you recovering from this faux paw, Mr. Tong.
I'm gonna own up to that.
That was a mistake.
I saw the former Lieutenant Governor, and I apologized to him.
This is the problem with Facebook and Twitter.
It's confusing.
It's misleading.
It seemed to us that a page with 400,000 followers that was driving traffic to Mike Fidelli's website was put out by Rush Limbaugh.
I think the bigger question, though, is you know, extremists on both sides, but particularly Rush Limbaugh and extremists like him and all of his fans, they're liking Mike Fidelity's page and they're supporting him.
And I think that's something that Mike Fidelli and other Republican candidates have to contend with.
So you see how this works here.
This is so stupid.
This is why this is one of these things that doesn't make any sense to me.
If this guy was so convinced that all of my fans liking this Fidelity guy's web page was gonna sink Fideli, he should be encouraging everybody to go to Fidelity's page and like it.
If it's extremists like me and extremists like you, but instead this this clown tong continues to be worried about it.
But look at the characterization here.
You know, this uh bigger question is extremists on both sides, but particularly Rush Limbaugh, an extremist like him.
And all of his fans are liking Fidelity's page.
We can't have that in America.
Who do they think they are?
Going to a web page and liking it.
And they're supporting Fideli.
Who the hell do they think they are?
We can't permit that.
We can't permit people supporting a Republican candidate anywhere in this state.
Who do these people think they are?
That's the problem with Twitter and Facebook.
All these Republicans are allowed to participate.
And I think that's something Fidelity and the other Republican candidates are gonna have to contend with.
Does that make any sense to you?
This is pure unadulterated idiocy.
The fact of the matter is if this idiot Tong guy was really of the belief that all of you going to this Fidel guy's page and liking him was going to hurt Fidelity, then he ought to be encouraging even more of it.
But now he's trying to discredit it, and obviously nobody's going to his page and liking him.
So why don't you do this, folks?
Do me a favor, it is Tong guy's feelings are obviously hurt.
Why don't you go to his page?
It's T-O-N-G, William Tong, and just like his page.
It's for the fun of it.
It ain't gonna matter he'll beans of the election.
Just go to his page so he won't have his feelings hurt and have the added bonus of having a bunch of extremists like his page.
And then see what he says.
Let's see if he rejects all of the likes on his page.
I mean, it's you talk about guilt by association.
This is classic McCarthyism.
Now, the Supreme Court had oral arguments today on the uh Proposition 8 California, same-sex marriage.
This is another thing that confused me because what happened?
People started sending me tweets from the SCOTUS blog.
Now, the SCOTUS blog, Supreme Court of the United States, is a blog run by people who apparently are excellent at interpreting the questions and comments made by the justices during oral arguments and then making predictions on how the case will end up based on that.
So I'm getting all of these tweets, and they're very conflicting.
But I'm being told that they all mean the same thing, but I'm looking at them and they can't possibly mean the same thing.
Here's the upshot of it.
Oral arguments were held today, and the Bloomberg story on this, and and the SCOTUS blog people made note of this as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court raised the prospect that it will decline to say whether the Constitution gives homosexuals the right to marry in an argument that revealed a deep divide among the justices.
Now, the SCOTUS blog said unequivocally, this was not a prediction from these guys.
They said after oral arguments, there were not five votes to invalidate Prop 8.
That's the first thing.
They said that after they'd studied the oral argument, questions and comments and so forth, both lawyers, all the justices that participated, that there were not five votes to essentially legalize same-sex marriage.
There were not five votes to overturn Prop 8.
But then, after that assessment was made, an assessment was made that Anthony Kennedy made it very plain he doesn't want to rule on this at all and wants to dismiss the case.
Justice Kennedy said, I just wonder if the case was properly granted.
He twice asked whether the most prudent course for the court would be not to rule at all.
Now if that happens, if the court doesn't rule, as I understand it, and I'm not sure I do.
If the court doesn't rule and essentially dismisses the case, it means that the last legal interpretation stands.
That would be the ruling of the Ninth Circus, which invalidated Prop 8.
So what we're being told here is that Justice Kennedy, and there's one of these tweets from the SCOTUS blog people, Justice Kennedy just doesn't have it in him to invalidate Prop 8.
He just can't bring himself to do it.
But he would essentially do that by dismissing the case.
If he votes to invalidate Prop 8, that means same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land in California.
And it the tweets all say he doesn't want to do that.
He wants to dismiss the case.
Well, if he dismisses the case, he's essentially invalidating Prop 8, because that lets the Ninth Circus ruling stand, and the Ninth Circus, as you know, is why they're all there.
The Ninth Circus overturned Prop 8.
The Ninth Circuit said this is unconstitutional.
You can't deny homosexuals the right to marriage.
Prop eight unconstitutional.
And if the Supreme Court decides you're not going to hear this case, and if they do indeed decide to dismiss it, so as I'm told and I understand it, then same-sex marriage is the law of the land in California.
The reason why I'm confused is because the same people are saying two different things.
Let me explain it again.
SCOTUS tweets.
One tweet says Kennedy just doesn't have it in him to uh invalidate Prop 8.
I mean he doesn't have it in him to tell the people of California they were wrong.
He doesn't, he just he can't that this is what they say at the SCOTUS blog.
Okay, so that means that Kennedy is uncomfortable invalidating it, right?
Doesn't want to invalidate it.
So then they say that Kennedy prefers to just dismiss the case, which would invalidate it.
Because it would let the Ninth Circus Trump prop eight.
You still look confused.
Okay, what are you confused about?
See, this is what I mean.
This is this is so damn and by the way, there didn't no ruling today.
There isn't going to be a ruling on this until June, the end of June, about the same time the next iPhone's announced.
I can tell you what I'm be more forward looking to.
I believe the next damn iPhone release, that's what.
But what it what are you conc?
That's what they say.
They say Kennedy they first thing they say that right now the SCOTUS block, they are not five votes to tell the people of California to go to hell.
There are not five votes to give the same-sex marriage crowd what they want.
Right now, there are not five votes to uphold the Ninth Circus.
That help you.
Okay.
But if Kennedy succeeds in getting a case dismissed, the Ninth Circus is upheld.
Well, well, come snurk, yes, of course, limits the damage to California.
But that's what the case is about California.
Well, they can do three things.
They can rule the the court could reinstate California's ban and leave each state to make its own decision.
The court could issue a narrow ruling that would create a right to gay marriage in California only, maybe a few other states, or it could announce a constitutional right to gay marriage everywhere.
It could do anything they want.
It's the Supreme Court.
You realize how stupid this is.
Do you really that you realize that with all of this and what the problem is?
The problem is that once again, nine, nine exalted lawyers are determining something that has been a tradition since the beginning of time.
Nine exalted lawyers.
And it it's folks, what it what it's like I said yesterday, what really is going on here is the left is forcing their agenda on us.
They don't care whether they're popular votes to support it or not, that doesn't matter.
It's going to be forced on us, however, whichever, whenever, it doesn't matter.
Pure and simple.
Of course there's more to this.
I mean, I one of the one of the women that the case is about went to the microphones after the oral arguments, and she I think her name is Steyr or Steer S T I E R. Not heard it pronounced.
And she said, it's all about love for me.
I just and that's that's the argument that the the pro-homosexual marriage people are made.
It's an emotional, it's all about love.
That's what is appealing to the young people.
Who can deny anybody love?
Well, who should have that power?
Well, nobody should be able to deny people love and so forth.
And so that's how they're they're uh they're selling it.
But Kennedy, you know, he's kind of saying what we're saying, well what the hell are we doing here?
What we don't want why is this case before us?
This is not what we're here for.
But in doing so, if if they dismiss the case, then Prop eight uh is invalidated, just like Prop 187 was, just like every other election, every other proposition, it seems lately in California, whatever the people there decide gets overturned by a judge somewhere.
And that would be the case here if it is dismissed.
So let me take a brief I look, I'm sorry for sharing my confusion with you because in the process now you're getting confused.
I can tell looking at Snerdley.
He thought you probably thought you had this understood from front to back, side to side, now you don't know what's going on.
Well, join the club.
Back after this.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB networks.
It take four justices here.
It takes four justices to take up a case.
But even if four justices agree to take the case, it doesn't mean that there are five justices to rule in favor of gay marriage.
Now, if this Bloomberg story is correct, and it does dovetail with the SCOTUS blog, and in fact, Scotus blog could be the source for the Bloomberg story.
It could well be that what we're looking at here is the limbaugh theorem applying to Justice Kennedy.
It could well be that just look at because folks, if Kennedy doesn't want to invalidate this, but yet somehow manages to get the case dismissed, he does invalidate it.
So it's a way of getting Prop 8 invalidated without him actually so ruling, i.e., his fingerprints wouldn't be on it.
That's one possibility.
The other possibility is he really doesn't think this case belongs there, that this is way beyond what the court's purpose is, and it could well be that there are some justices who do not, as I said yesterday, this is a stretch too, I know, but it's still possible.
Because if if gay marriage ends up becoming legal all across the country without a corresponding vote of the people, we are going to have as royaled a society on that issue as we do on abortion.
I made that point yesterday.
So there are a number of possibilities that exist here to explain what's going on, and of course, we're not going to know anything until June, late June, when the uh ruling is scheduled to be announced, much more straight ahead.
Let me let me tell you folks why I'm frustrated about this.
Because there is there is something here at the root level of all this that needs reminding.
And it is where we are in America today, and that is the will of the people, doesn't mean anything.
In California, there was a ballot initiative, proposition eight, on which the people of the whole state voted, and by a large majority, despite a lot of money being spent on ads to the contrary.
A large majority, the concept of same-sex marriage was defeated in the whole state of California.
The will of the people was expressed in a perfectly legal and valid election.
Well, the will of the people never would go the way of the left if the way of the left were clearly on every ballot.
The left knows this.
The will of the people.
We are a constitutional republic.
This is a ballot initiative system in California where the people can engage in, for lack of a better term, direct democracy.
And they did.
As I say, in a perfectly legal and above board election, the people of California at a wide margin said no to same-sex marriage.
The opponents, not recognizing defeat, went to the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, a friendly radical extremist left-wing court where Proposition eight was overturned on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.
So then the will of the people of California having been thwarted by a court, yet again, proponents of Propate, then petition the Supreme Court to hear the case for the express purpose of overturning the Ninth Circuit.
At that point, four justices of the Supreme Court, there have to be at least four justices to take up a case.
Have to vote to take up a case.
So in this case, we know that there are at least four justices on the Supreme Court for gay marriage.
It only takes four to force the issue before the court.
Now we don't know if that's what happened, but it's certainly possible.
Now Justice Kennedy, based on oral argument only, and that's tenuous at best, but the Scotus blog people claim to be expert at analyzing and predicting is saying why this case, Kennedy is saying, why is this case here in the first place?
That's an oral argument, he made it clear he doesn't even know why they're deciding this case.
So it's conceivable, at least, that five justices will say there is no standing by the plaintiffs in this case, the pro-prop eight people.
Since there's no damage, that is same-sex marriage is the court ordered law in California by virtue of the Ninth Circuit invalidating Proposition Eight.
Now, what the Supreme Court ought to do is reverse or overturn the Ninth Circuit and say it's a state, constitutional matter or statutory matter.
It's not a federal matter.
This is why all those Republicans who sign their public relations brief, that's what a lot of people are calling it the PR brief, the Semicus brief, obviously don't believe in a Tenth Amendment.
This this case ought not be at the U.S. Supreme Court, and Kennedy instinctively knows this.
By virtue of asking twice if the most prudent thing to do here would be not to rule on this at all.
Just dismiss it.
But that's that's the lazy way out.
Dismissing the case results in Prop 8 being overturned.
What they ought to do is say, we're sending this back, we're overturning the ninth yet again.
They had a totally legal election out there.
The will of the people has spoken, and it is what it is.
But that the will of the people doesn't match what the left wants, and therefore it can't stand.
I mean, I this here here's again where we are.
According to oral argument analysis today, Justice Kennedy twice asked whether the best thing to do here would be just not to rule, i.e., dismiss the case.
A previous prediction from SCOTUS said of Justice Kennedy that he just doesn't have it in him to invalidate Prop 8.
Can't bring himself to vote to invalidate it, i.e., agree with the Ninth Circus.
He believes in the will of the people.
That's what they're telling us.
It's a wild guess, it's an interpretation, because he didn't ever say that.
They're just basing it on oral arguments, comments, questions, so forth.
But in the process of invalidating it, or dismissing it rather, in the then if the court says, you know what, we're not taking a case, that's it, it's over with, then the last legal ruling stands, and that would be the Ninth Circus, which would mean that Proposition 8 would be overturned, which would mean yet again the will of people doesn't matter.
And that's what the United States Supreme Court will be saying if they dismiss the case that the will of the people doesn't matter.
Now, the limbaugh theorem may apply here.
The limbaugh theorem explains with ontological certitude how Barack Obama gets away with inflicting his agenda on the country without the people realizing it.
Same thing here.
Justice Kennedy may in fact want to invalidate Prop 8, but doesn't want fingerprints on it.
So he can accomplish invalidation without voting on it by urging the court to dismiss it.
And that would be how the limbaugh theorem enters into this.
Proposition eight was approved by a 52 to 47% margin.
And that number is even more remarkable when you consider that Obama won California with 61% of the vote.
Prop 8 went against the way the state voted for Obama.
Now there is another reason, another reason why they want to proclaim same-sex marriage a civil right.
You can overrule state laws if there is a civil right involved.
And the additional benefit to calling it a civil right is that people who oppose it Are then bigots.
And nobody wants to be a bigot, and nobody wants to support bigots, and so therefore everybody that voted for Proposition 8 in California, i.e., to uphold the standard definition of marriage between a man and a woman would be a bigot.
And thereby bring public pressure, nobody wants to be big.
Oh, no, no, no, okay, okay, I'll change my mind.
California blacks, African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 by 70%.
70% of African Americans voted to affirm marriage as that between a man and a woman by over 70%.
Even California Hispanics voted to affirm marriage as that between a man and a woman by 53 to 47%.
That's slightly higher than the general population.
So in every way you can analyze it, the will of the people in the state of California was to affirm marriage as that between a man and a woman.
But the will of the people doesn't mean jack diddly when the left wants something.
In fact, the vast majority of times when the left wants something, it must be against the will of the people.
I would maintain to you that this country is being governed against the will of the people.
If you look at every Obama issue...
A majority, minimum majority, 55% of the people oppose the Obama agenda.
They just don't associate that agenda with what's happening in the country.
That, again, the limbaugh theorem explains that.
But what the court ought to do, because the will of the people should Trump hear, then nothing that happened unconstitutional, there was nothing that was illegal about the election.
There was no chicanery involved.
It was a clean above-border election, will of the people, people of California spoke in a constitutional way in that state.
The Supreme Court should just reverse or overturn the Ninth Circus ruling, say that it's a state constitutional matter or statutory matter, not a federal matter.
But they're not going to do that.
Obviously, they're they're going to one way or the other, if the SCOTUS blog is right, one way or the other, when this is over, same-sex marriage will be validated.
Now that doesn't mean that the same-sex marriage proponents are happy today.
I've got some sound bites, and they're a little bit frightened, just like they were after oral arguments in Obamacare.
And it's kind of interesting.
Jeffrey Tubin is in a sort of panic because it's all on Kennedy here.
And he's also a little bit upset because he thinks that Roberts was not sympathetic to his lesbian cousin.
So we have the out the sound bites on that coming up as well.
In addition to all kinds of other stuff is now, for example, as spring break begins for screw children across the country, thousands of students have traveled to Washington.
Uh trips funded by bake sales and other events throughout the year will allow students to take in Washington's historic landmarks except for the tours of the White House, which are shut down by virtue of the sequester.
However, the Obama kids are over in Atlantis.
This is the third vacation of the year for the Obama family in three months, three vacations.
And this has been going on for years, the number of publicly financed elaborate, extravagant over the top vacations.
And there's not an uproar about it.
Nobody seems to be at all concerned about any of this.
I gotta take a brief time out.
Sit tight, much more straight ahead, lots of stuff here today, folks.
Equally confusing when we get back.
Now let's not forget one key element here.
If the court dismisses the case, then it would it would avoid having same-sex marriage nationalized and imposed on every state.
And if the court dismisses and thus denies standing, no reason there's no there's no uh the the litigants have no standing here to have the then then they can't issue a ruling if they dismiss it.
They obviously can't issue a ruling which would legalize gay marriage across the country.
And in that sense, you could say that having the case dismissed would be avoiding or dodging a huge bullet.
So there is then.
Now we've got a litigator, an appellate litigator in Los Angeles on the phone named Anthony.
Anthony Hi.
Glad you called.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, how are you doing today?
Confused as all get out is how I'm doing about everything today.
Okay, well, I'm not even sure it's daytime.
Maybe I can clarify a little bit before I do, can I make a quick plea to your listeners?
Uh I haven't read the uh oral argument transcript, but based on your recitation of it, it sounds like there were votes up for grabs.
Now, what this means is between now and June, the left is gonna be writing articles nonstop saying that if the court affirms Prop 8, the court will be disre disregarded in from the perspective of history.
No question about it.
So what what conservatives need to do is they need to counter the campaign.
They need to write articles.
They need to get out there and say if the court invalidates Prop 8 or allows Prop 8 to be invalidated, the court will show upon this country an incredible harm that will have to be litigated for years, like Roe v.
Wade was exactly exactly.
The problem, Anthony, is that there are a bunch of Republicans, not necessarily conservatives, although some of them are, who have signed on to the amicus brief for the Ninth Circuit version of this.
Right, but there are plenty of uh experts in your audience that could write letters to the editor.
That is true.
Anyway, to the to it to the uh standing issue in the case.
Um it's kind of complicated, but here's the the uh crux of the issue.
When Prop A was determined, the opponents of Prop 8 went went into federal court and they said this is unconstitutional.
The state at that point was required to defend the proposition, this the state government, which was run at the time by Jerry Brown.
Right, I believe it was Jerry Brown because he was the attorney general.
Uh they defended Prop 8.
I'm not sure if they put up a vigorous defense.
It may have been half-hearted, but I don't recall, so I'm not gonna make any statements one way or the other.
But the court ultimately said Prop 8's unconstitutional.
When the case went up on appeal, the state of California said Ida, we're not gonna defend Prop 8 anymore.
And what by the state of California dropping out, it created a question well, is there really a controversy anymore?
Because no one's opposing the ruling below that said Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
So what the Ninth Circuit did was it said the proponents of the ballot proposition, the people who put the ballot proposition on the ballot could actually go into the appellate court and to def defend the proposition.
So and this and the Ninth Circuit said they have standing to do that.
And then once the Ninth Circuit made that standing determination and went on to consider the merits of Prop 8, and it determined that Prop A needed to be with unconstitutional, and it fudged it a little bit.
It didn't declare the clear uh Prop 8 unconstitutional because I've got 30 seconds.
Now take me to the Supreme Court what you've learned about what happened today.
All right, just based on your comments, what it seems like is either one of two things was happening.
The Supreme Court was considering to reverse the Ninth Circuit on the standing issue, which would mean the Ninth Circuit of Pedien would actually be vacated.
And the only opinion left would be the trial court decision.
But I don't know what that means, because this is such an odd situation, and you don't know about the case.
Look at this, you're Right, this is all up for grabs, and it's it's it's very premature because it's all speculation.
But I haven't seen anything that at all refers to this court determining whether or not they're gonna overturn the ninth.
They should, but I haven't seen that that was interpreted by anybody watching this as something that was being considered by the Supreme Court.
Anyway, I'm I'm up against it against time here, Anthony.
I have to run.
I'm sorry.
Back in a sec, folks.
Our last caller was essentially saying that if the judges rule that the litigants had no standing, that the ninth circus could be invalidated.
So let me explain that when we come back from this break here, folks.
▲
Export Selection