Posted on 06/27/2016 11:11:32 AM PDT by servo1969
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The Supreme Court's gone. Even at eight members in a case like this, you can count on Justice Kennedy to join 'em, the four libs. So you essentially have a 5-3 leftist court now. But it's not a court. It is a partisan echo chamber of the Democrat Party or leftist agenda. We have a Democrat nominee, Hillary, who's wiped away -- just erased -- all objections to corruption as a disqualifying factor for Democrats.
Democrats are making it clear they don't care how corrupt their leaders are. In fact, the more corrupt their leaders are -- if it enables them to defeat us -- the better. So here's to corruption. If it takes corruption -- if it takes all kinds of Clintons funny money, Clinton foundations -- if it takes selling the White House and selling the presidency to foreign entities, fine, as long as that helps beat conservatives. This wasn't the case that long ago. Budgets don't mean anything anymore. The debt doesn't mean anything.
The deficit, the national debt? None of it has any relevance! None of it has any limiting meaning. There is no responsibility whatsoever coming out of Washington when it comes to budgeting, when it comes to economics, when it comes to legislation. There isn't any responsibility or even adult behavior coming out of that town. Social Security and Medicare are racing to insolvency. Public school bathrooms and how they are used became a presidential concern. Voter ID, a way to ensure legitimacy at the polls, is considered unfair.
Yeah, we can't embark on any major step to ensure legality and fairness at the polls because it's called racism and sexism and bigotry and everything else! The president enforces laws of his choosing in defiance of federal court and federal appellate court rulings, and if I understand the Supreme Court decision today on abortion, I guess back-alley abortions weren't really a problem because all Texas did was try to enhance safety procedures for women who wanted to get abortions. "No, no, no, no!" the left said.
"You are not gonna put any limit whatsoever, even if it means popularizing the equivalent of back-alley abortions." And I'm gonna tell you, folks, when it comes to abortion, yes, the substance of the issue matters. But beating us is just as motivating and just as important. If you doubt me, listen to audio sound bite number one. It's Jeffrey Toobin, legal beagle at CNN, who was asked by Jake Tapper today, "The Supreme Court could have divided 4-4. They could have kicked this back to the lower court. That would have upheld the Texas law. But they staked out a stance on this, Jeffrey."
TOOBIN: As we have said so often, this decision was in the hands of Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote. What makes this decision so significant is that after 2010 -- after the Republican landslides and all the state legislatures -- many states, not just Texas, passed restrictions that are very similar to these Texas rules. Louisiana, Mississippi. And so if the Supreme Court has now struck down these restrictions, it is very likely that other courts will strike down a variety of restrictions that Republican-dominated legislatures have passed since are left.
RUSH: Don't doubt me. You hear that? Of all the things this guy could have said about this ruling, the substance, he didn't even talk about it. What did he talk about? The crucial importance of this victory is how it thwarts the results of the 2010 Republican landslide midterm election victory. That's what's important about it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's what the Texas law basically did that's been struck down on abortion. But I'm telling you, as far as the left is concerned, the big deal here is that the meaning... One of the things that happened as the result of the 2010 Republican landslide has been beat-back. Beating us is as big a deal to them. This did not threaten abortion, but they believe any law -- any law -- that stands in the way of any abortion any time has got to be stopped because it's a trend toward banning abortion.
What would have happened here, Texas argued before the court, is that in its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules that Texas implemented required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. And the law forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surge. And the pro-aborts looked at this as efforts to limit abortion. What they were, were efforts to make it safer. To the extent that it might have limited abortion by eliminating certain clinics, yeah, you could see that, and that's what the pro-aborts saw.
"No, no, no! We're not gonna limit our clinics. You're not gonna shut us down no matter what goes on in there. It doesn't matter. You are not gonna win! You're not gonna have one win when it comes to abortion. Abortion is constitutional, and we're not gonna allow you one maneuver even if it is legitimately made to have qualified doctors and qualified outpatients." They don't care. Making sure the abortion happens is the nut of the political agenda. And defeating us in the process is not just icing on the cake; it's practically as important as the substance of the case.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: No, I'm not exaggerating the Supreme Court decision here. That's why I said, "Apparently back-alley abortions weren't really a problem." Apparently abortuaries that are no better than veterinary clinics like Kermit Gosnell's are apparently not a problem. "You're not gonna put any limits. You're not gonna put safety standards. You're not gonna do anything to our abortion clinics even under the guys of making it safe that might make it tougher to get an abortion. We're not gonna allow it!" And that's exactly what the court said.
So the next to you hear 'em talking about... They're not. There just... This is filthy, is what it is. You know what the grating thing is? These are the people who somehow get the credit for having all the compassion for their fellow human beings. These are the people that get the credit for having so much love and tolerance, compassion, understanding. They are brutal, these people on the left. Now, get this, folks. We're under assault. We're under siege everywhere. Richard Posner. He may pronounce it "Pozz-ner;" there are two different pronunciations.
Vladimir Posner, Soviet Union spokesman, friend of Phil Donahue, pronounced it "Pose-ner." This judge, he's a Seventh Circuit judge, Richard Posner -- appointed by Reagan; important to keep in mind here -- "and has been alternately praised and condemned by judicial analysts." This guy, Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner, posted today a little article at Slate.com, saying that it's time now that US judges stop studying the Constitution.
The Constitution, as a reference point for the law, is outdated, past its time, unhelpful, and irrelevant. He said in his post at Slate. "I see absolutely no value to a judge spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and it's implementation." It's only the official law of the land, and here's a Seventh Circuit judge saying it's worthless!
It's the law of the land. The amendments? Its implementation? It's a waste of time even if you spend seconds studying it. "'Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,' he continued. 'Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.'" The story's at Mediaite. They conclude this with this paragraph:
"Posner, an influential jurist who has served as a federal judge for thirty-five years, has previously voiced his disregard for the Constitution. "'I'm not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don't believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today,' he said during a 2015 colloquium." He's not a dumb guy by any stretch, but this presents a total misunderstanding of what the Constitution is. It's a profound distortion of what the Constitution is.
This is stunning.
The Constitution planted the roots of American exceptionalism -- again, defined by the fact that America was the "exception" to the way and the rule of life for humanity centuries before. The Constitution... Well, Magna Carta. Magna Carta. I guess we'd have to say Magna Carta was first, but the US Constitution was the first document to ever limit the government. And that is why the opponents want to get rid of it, because it limits the government. It does not empower government. It empowers citizens. It empowers individuals.
The Constitution spends all of its time, the Bill of Rights, defining what the government cannot do. And that just irritates people who think the government ought to be able to do anything and everything, because other people -- average people -- are not competent or qualified to make their own decisions. Or, it's worse than that. It's just people that are totally power mad and power hungry who doesn't believe in representative government, do not believe in republics.
But to say that the Constitution cannot guide our behavior today? It has successfully. That's one of the brilliant aspects of the document is it's timelessness. Really, the whole thing is a miracle. The entire United States is a miracle, from the Pilgrims arrival to the drafting of the Declaration to the Revolutionary War, the whole thing's a miracle. And the drafting of the Constitution has never been done before and hasn't been done since except in a copycat kind of way.
But there's no value in studying its enactment, its amendments, its implications because what's in it isn't relevant to today? It's the law of the land. Anyway, this guy's appointed by Reagan, and he's been around for 35 years on the court, which just illustrates how people can lose their grounding. It's amazing. This is the kind of thing, by the way, that's gonna be latched onto. There's a whole movement on the left that agrees with this and that thinks the Constitution...
I've told you before, they call it "a charter of negative liberties." You know, when I first heard that, I said, "How can liberty be negative? What the hell does that mean?" And it was insider lingo for leftists who think that the Constitution has negative liberties because it tells government what it can't do, and that's not good. "We need something that spells out what the government can do, what the government will do, not what the government can't do."
And it's forever going to come under assault and attack in a variety of ways, and this is just most recent one.
END TRANSCRIPT
Yeah that was the idea.
Because as everyone knows “liberalism” is “right” and “conservatism” is “wrong.”
SECOND: the scope of this decision is LIMITED to the parties of the case. The Constitution does NOT give the judicial branch legislative power to create national law. The constitutional power of the judicial branch is LIMITED TO INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES (Art III, Sec 2).
Well most women for abortion are not the ones Ya wanna boink anyway
Plus striking down a law as unconstitutional doesn’t magically mean the law stating the opposite passes.
Ok?
Well how about the government of Texas (instead of people there shooting off their mouths about secession), demonstrate this by nullifying and rejecting this ruling?
The governor I’m sure will make a big stink in some press releases, and then nothing.
Shows what type of people are democrats.
“The law” is the Constitution which passed many years ago. As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm, Texas and all states are sovereign outside the limited, constitutional authority of the feds. The Constitution gives the feds very limited and very specific authority to interfere with state law and that constitutional authority does NOT include interfering with the states about abortion, marriage, or the myriad of federal interference with the states over the last 100 or so years.
Time to take back our country from these tyrant jackals.
Bush’s remark that abortion mills, like Gosnel’s are “no better than” veterinary clinics is wrong. The veterinary clinics I take my dogs to are pretty much on the order of the excellent medical facilities I go to for myself. Gosnel’s operation was on a vastly lower level.
Well the deluge over the edge like water flowing over Niagara Falls is now coming forth. Dictatorship, totalitarianism, mass murder, death squads, depravity to a depth of scale humanity has yet to see is coming to a nation near you. Actually its already here, the bill is just now coming due and everyone is realizing to their horror or their evil glee depending on which side people are on.
If the Supreme Court has become a rubber stamp of the democratic agenda, then why did they strike down Obama’s immigration plan? Rush has selective memory. Or better yet, never let facts get in the way of good talk radio.
Hussein has mooted The Law. Ignore the bad stuff. Just don’t get caught. Eternal vigilence....
That happened years ago.
You think that’s something! Wail until Hillary gets through appointing 5 or 6 “Justices.”
Rush is right, per his norm.
Rush passes gas again and no one hears. Most here on FR do not care what Rush says or thinks any longer.
His daily thread here used to get 250-300 posts a day. Now there is one thread for the whole eeek and gets 25 or so a day.
Rush sold his creds to Cruzers.
“under the guys of making it safe”
guise not guys.
Almost, but not quite. Obama and Company lost big on the illegal alien issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.