{"id":32953,"date":"2009-07-14T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T02:10:20","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-04-23T14:53:40","modified_gmt":"2021-04-23T18:53:40","slug":"sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/","title":{"rendered":"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites"},"content":{"rendered":"
RUSH: To the phones we continue, Rapid City, South Dakota. Tom, it\u2019s nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Welcome back.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Mark did a wonderful job.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I appreciate knowing that. I heard that from a lot of people.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I was going to ask you, Rush, about Judge Sotomayor. Will anybody on the committee ask her about her affiliation with La Raza? I guess she\u2019s been a member for like six years now.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I don\u2019t know if they will or not. I can only hazard a guess, and that is they won\u2019t. Because they all want the Hispanic vote and that means they all want La Raza liking them. So I don\u2019t think you\u2019re going to have anybody go there. I think as far as… I could be wrong. Lindsey Graham may shock us all, or Orrin Hatch. I don\u2019t know. We will just have to wait. Speaking of Sotomayor, let\u2019s go to some sound bites here, folks. I\u2019ve been delaying this \u2019cause here\u2019s Leahy, and I tell you, I mentioned at the top of the program he\u2019s starting to sound more and more like Larry Flynt. (doing impression) ‘Uh, ah, Larry…\u2019 and I just constantly want to clear my throat when I\u2019m listening to Leahy. But here was his question to Sotomayor on the controversy over the ‘wise Latina\u2019 comment.<\/p>\n

LEAHY: During the course of this, umm, nomination there have been some unfortunate comments — including outrageous charges of racism — made about you on radio and television. One person, um, referred to you as being the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan, and another leader in the other party referred to you as being a ‘bigot.\u2019 You\u2019ve heard all these charges and countercharges, the ‘wise Latina\u2019 and on and on. Here\u2019s your chance. You tell us what\u2019s going on here, Judge.<\/p>\n

RUSH: And here is what she said.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: My speech to a variety of different groups — most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups most particularly of young Latino lawyers and students — I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.<\/p>\n

RUSH: (sigh)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: The context of the words have created a misunderstanding and to give everyone assurances —<\/p>\n

RUSH: (sigh)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — I want to state up front unequivocally and without doubt —<\/p>\n

RUSH: (sigh)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yes.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — has an advantage in sound judging.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yes, she does.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — regardless of their background or life experiences.<\/p>\n

RUSH: There was no way to ‘take it out of context.\u2019 There was no way to take the ‘wise Latina\u2019 out of context. She said she hoped that a ‘wise Latina woman\u2019 would… Okay. Now, when she says, ‘I want to state unequivocally without doubt, I don\u2019t believe that any racial gender group has an advantage in sound judging,\u2019 I do believe she thinks that. I don\u2019t think she\u2019s talking about sound judging. She\u2019s talking about empathy. These people know what it\u2019s like to have a tough and hard and miserable life because of the majority in this country, and they — because of the disadvantages and the discrimination that they have had, they — are going to be able to make wiser rulings to help the minorities. That\u2019s what she believes. It\u2019s not about sound judging. It\u2019s about reversing power and using law to do it, from a flawed perception of who has power in the first place. She\u2019s got this minority mind-set, and part of the minority mind-set is you\u2019re always getting beat up. You\u2019re always being discriminated against. You\u2019re always being treated unfairly. I\u2019m gonna fix it! That comes from that ‘rich background\u2019 of being untreated unfairly and discriminated against, we know how to get even. That\u2019s what she means. She\u2019s not talking about sound judging. Then she rambled on here blaming Sandra Day O\u2019Connor for her words.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: What… The words that I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Mmm.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can\u2019t mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that. So her literal words couldn\u2019t have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of a capacity to be fair and impartial.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay, so it was Sandra Day O\u2019Connor\u2019s fault! ‘Sandra Day O\u2019Connor could not have meant what she said. Sandra Day O\u2019Connor had to mean what I said.\u2019 Sandra Day O\u2019Connor is probably playing golf in Arizona, finds out about this, and goes, ‘Whoa. What do I do here? Do I stay loyal to the women or do I chime in here?\u2019 She said she hoped that a wise man or wise woman come to the same decision. You know, there is such a thing as wisdom, even though people come to different conclusions. Not everybody who comes to a different conclusion is wise. Some people come to wrong conclusions. It doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019re not wise. Anyway that\u2019s it. Blame Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, blame Sandra Day O\u2019Connor. ‘O\u2019Connor meant what I said. So take that. Take that, committee!\u2019<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Jeff Sessions was precise and terrific when he got his chance at Sonia Sotomayor today. During his 30-minute questioning period, he dissected every statement that she has made; properly analyzed it; and asked her about it. Here\u2019s one. He said to her, ‘You previously said that the court of appeals ‘is where policy is made,\u2019 and you said on another occasion, ‘The law that lawyers practice examine judges declare is not a definitive, capital-L law that many would like to think exists.\u2019 So I guess I\u2019m asking today: What do you really believe on those subjects?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: In that conversation with the students, I was focusing on what district court judges do and what circuit court judges do — and I noted that district court judges find the facts, and they apply the facts to the individual case. And when they do that, their holding, their finding doesn\u2019t bind anybody else. Appellate judges, however, establish precedent. I think if my speech is heard outside of the minute-and-a-half that YouTube presents and its full context examined, that it\u2019s veeeery clear that I was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent and never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that Congress makes.<\/p>\n

RUSH: This is a clear example of what I was talking about earlier. This answer is a total fudge. She meant it when she says judges make policy. That\u2019s how liberals view courts! That\u2019s exactly what she meant, but she knows if she says that in this hearing, she got big problems. So she\u2019s gotta fudge it. Well, let\u2019s go back and let\u2019s listen to what she said. Here\u2019s the comment. They\u2019re all referring to. It\u2019s from February 25th, 2005, in Durham, North Carolina, at the Duke University School of Law.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they\u2019re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is — where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don\u2019t make law. I know.<\/p>\n

STUDENTS: (laughing)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: Okay, I know. I know. I\u2019m not… I\u2019m not promoting it, I\u2019m not advocating it, I\u2019m…<\/p>\n

STUDENTS: (laughing)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: You know.<\/p>\n

RUSH: She admits it! I mean, it\u2019s in the whole bite. (paraphrased) ‘I shouldn\u2019t say this, let\u2019s all chuckle about it because we\u2019re all of the same mind we\u2019re. I shouldn\u2019t say this on tape. The court of appeals is where policy is made.\u2019 She\u2019s talking… Folks, it\u2019s like everything else that\u2019s happening in these hearings. She is fudging what she really means in order to get confirmed. She\u2019s lying, in other words. Even though she said it seven times, she said today she didn\u2019t mean it. Jeff Sessions: ‘Do you stand by your statement that ‘my experiences affect the facts I choose to see\u2019? Do you stand by that statement? She said, ‘My experience as a wise Latina affects the facts I choose to see.\u2019 Do you stand by that statement?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir, I don\u2019t stand by the understanding of that statement, that I will ignore other facts or other experiences because I haven\u2019t had them. I do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. They help you to understand and listen, but that the law requires a result, and it will command you to the facts that are relevant to the disposition of the case.<\/p>\n

SESSIONS: Well, I will just note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years\u2019 span, and it\u2019s a concern to me.<\/p>\n

RUSH: She didn\u2019t mean it, though. She said it seven times but she didn\u2019t mean it. No. She doesn\u2019t stand by the understanding of that statement that I will ignore facts and so forth. But she said, ‘My experiences affect the facts I choose to see.\u2019 Look, in all of her speeches she\u2019s telling us who she is. She just won\u2019t do it with the national spotlight. Next Sessions: ‘How can you reconcile your speeches — which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a mere aspiration, which may not be possible in all or even most cases? How do you reconcile that with your oath that you\u2019ve taken twice, which requires impartiality?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn\u2019t wise. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was… Fell flat. It was bad. Because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that\u2019s clearly not what I do as a judge.<\/p>\n

RUSH: And once again Ms. Sotomayor is misleading — and I\u2019ll be charitable there. She\u2019s misleading everybody, rambling incoherently trying to change the subject from who she really is and what she really believes. Sessions was great on this subject today. Let\u2019s move on. We\u2019re going to skip number 15, Mike. This is the Ricci decision. Senator Sessions: ‘You\u2019ve stated that your background ‘affects the facts you choose to see.\u2019 Was the fact that the New Haven firefighters had been subject to discrimination one of the facts you chose not to see in that case?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: A variety of different judges on the appellate court were looking at the case in light of established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent and determined that the city, facing potential liability under Title VII, could choose not to certify the test if it believes an equally good test could be made with a different impact on affected groups. The Supreme Court, as it is — is prerogative, looking at a challenge, established a new consideration, or a different standard for the city to apply, and that is: Was there substantial evidence that they would be held liable under the law? That was a new consideration. Our panel didn\u2019t look at that issue that way because it wasn\u2019t argued to us in the case before us.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, that is just a total distraction. That is the worst of all of these. She buried what she really believed. That was an unpublished opinion in a summary judgment case. She was finding for the minority because they were the minority, pure and simple. She was ignoring every other aspect of it, ignoring the Constitution — and she was even called on that fact. One more. Sessions: ‘Do you think that Frank Ricci, the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from your court?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: We were very sympathetic and expressed our sympathy to Mr. Ricci and the others. We understood the efforts that they had made in taking the tests. We said as much. They did have before them a 78-page thorough opinion by the district court. They obviously disagreed with the law as it stood under Second Circuit precedent. That\u2019s why they were pursuing their claims and did pursue them further. The panel was dealing with precedent and arguments that relied on our precedent.<\/p>\n

RUSH: And that\u2019s another thing. This precedent business, stare decisis, ‘Well, I\u2019ll go for precedent every time I can except when I won\u2019t. Precedent is not locked. Precedent doesn\u2019t mean you can never vary. If precedent meant that, we\u2019d still have slavery. I mean, they overturned it. It was the Roger Taney court with the Dred Scott decision that was dead wrong about slavery. But if we had relied on precedent as something rock solid we can\u2019t move, where would we be today?\u2019 Following precedent, my rear end. That\u2019s not at all what she was doing. She was very sympathetic — and remember that\u2019s what Ruth ‘Buzzi\u2019 Ginsburg said, ‘While the court sympathizes with…\u2019 That\u2019s not what they want when they go before a court. That doesn\u2019t get \u2019em anything. They want justice!<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: By the way, folks, on this wise Latina comment, just to put this in its proper perspective, even CNN pointed out one of the times — I\u2019ve got the webpage here — one of the times that Sotomayor made her wise Latina comment she added a contrast to white men. ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience, would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than your average white man.\u2019 That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in Sotomayor speeches delivered in 1994, in 1999, in 2002, in 2004 and 2001. And in the 2001 speech is where she included the phrase ‘than a white male who hasn\u2019t lived that life,\u2019 she added that at the end and that\u2019s what\u2019s sparked the cries of racism here from me and others, but, let\u2019s see — one, two, three, four, five years different speeches she\u2019s made the comment and today she tries to say it\u2019s a rhetorical flourish or was taken out of context or just outright deny it. Now, here\u2019s why Sonia Sotomayor, in a very simple way of explaining it, is dangerous. You heard her say — in fact, I may want you to hear her say it again. I need sound bite number 14 to illustrate the forthcoming brilliant point. Are you ready? Here it is.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn\u2019t wise. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was — fell flat.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s enough. ‘I knew that Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant what she said.\u2019 ‘I knew that Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant what she said.\u2019 If Sonia Sotomayor is willing to, in open testimony, say, Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant what she said, how simple and easy would it be for her to say the Founders couldn\u2019t possibly have meant whatever they said when they wrote the Constitution. They couldn\u2019t possibly have meant this. Even though they wrote it down in clear declarative statements. Sonia Sotomayor says about Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, so her literal words couldn\u2019t have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of a capacity to be fair and impartial. She couldn\u2019t have meant what she said. If she can say that about Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, she can look at the Constitution and say, ‘They didn\u2019t mean that.\u2019 And this one little example is all you need to know how dangerous this woman is.<\/p>\n

Our Constitution is not safe with this woman interpreting it, because if she can say Sandra Day O\u2019Connor didn\u2019t mean what she said, then she can say the same thing about any of the Founding Fathers and authors of the Constitution. Now, to show you how effective Jeff Sessions was, we have here samples of the State-Run Media reacting to Sessions. Remember, now, she\u2019s the one who has used this term ‘wise Latina\u2019 in speeches over five years, richness of her experience in one of the speeches she said she\u2019s be a better judge than a white man. Chris Matthews is talking to this guy Richard Wolffe on MSNBC, says, ‘She didn\u2019t make these mea culpas on her own before the process began. She didn\u2019t choose to qualify her statements \u2019til she had to here in this hearing.\u2019<\/p>\n

WOLFFE: Sessions, of course, is well within his rights to push her on these comments, but the majority of these questions were focused on race. He\u2019s playing racial politics, too, and that\u2019s a very sensitive area for Republicans in general.<\/p>\n

MATTHEWS: Because he\u2019s from Alabama?<\/p>\n

WOLFFE: Well, hey, look, Alabama politics on one side, this is also Republicans on a national stage.<\/p>\n

MATTHEWS: You said yesterday, this was a surrogate fight over the direction of the country politically. And the sympathy of the Democratic Party generally espouses towards minorities generally, right?<\/p>\n

WOLFFE: Hm-hm.<\/p>\n

MATTHEWS: Is at issue here.<\/p>\n

WOLFFE: That\u2019s what\u2019s being —<\/p>\n

MATTHEWS: That\u2019s an issue here.<\/p>\n

WOLFFE: — litigated before us.<\/p>\n

MATTHEWS: And that\u2019s what\u2019s being litigated before us.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So she\u2019s the racist and they turn it around and say that Sessions is the racist. Sotomayor is the one who used the phrase ‘wise Latina\u2019 and the richness of her experiences would make her a better judge than the average white guy. She is the racist. State-Run Media attacks Jeff Sessions, \u2019cause he\u2019s from Alabama, why he\u2019s gotta be a racist just like those three kids at Duke had to rape that dancer, she was black, she was poor, she was a dancer, they\u2019re rich elite athletes at a power school. Of course they raped her. We don\u2019t even need to know the facts, of course they did. Uh, no, they didn\u2019t. Okay never mind. So now Jeff Sessions is the racist.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Christian in Somerset, New Jersey, great to have you with us on the EIB Network. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hey. How are you?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Fine.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Good. Rush, I sit there and I cringe sometimes when I listen to you. Sotomayor, in her speech today — in her answer today — clearly said, um that Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, if the outcome between a wise old woman and a wise old man were different — if they came to different conclusions — then she couldn\u2019t have meant that one of them was not wise. She didn\u2019t disagree with O\u2019Connor. She didn\u2019t look at it and say, ‘Her original premise is not what she meant.\u2019<\/p>\n

RUSH: I don\u2019t care.<\/p>\n

CALLER: And it is a stretch to say —<\/p>\n

RUSH: No, it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n

CALLER: — that she would then look at the Constitution —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Whoa! Whoa!<\/p>\n

CALLER: — and say, ‘That\u2019s not what our Founders meant.\u2019 That\u2019s a stretch. That\u2019s a stretch!<\/p>\n

RUSH: Christian, back off. It\u2019s not a stretch at all. If she\u2019ll take Sandra Day O\u2019Connor\u2019s words and say, ‘She didn\u2019t mean that,\u2019 then she can just as easily to say that about James Madison.<\/p>\n

CALLER: She didn\u2019t say that she didn\u2019t mean that they would not come to the same conclusions. She didn\u2019t take her original statement and say, ‘That\u2019s not what she meant.\u2019 She carried it a step further.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Hold it a minute! We\u2019re going to listen to this sound bite together. Grab number 14 again. Now, this is —<\/p>\n

CALLER: Rush, I\u2019m waiting to go into my appointment. If I have to hang up, I\u2019m sorry.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s all right. This will take 30 seconds. No more than 30 seconds. Play number 14. We\u2019ll listen together.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I heard it, though.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Number 14?<\/p>\n

CALLER: I heard it, though.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: It was a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I heard her say about the ‘wise Latina woman…\u2019 (drops)<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I knew that Justice O\u2019Connor couldn\u2019t have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn\u2019t wise.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. She ‘couldn\u2019t have meant\u2019 what she said.<\/p>\n

CALLER: She couldn\u2019t have meant if they came up to diff-rent con-clu-sionssss. Sandra Day O\u2019Connor was saying that they should come to the same conclusions. But if they came to different conclusions, she couldn\u2019t have meant that one of them was unwise. It\u2019s maybe a fine point, Rush, but it in no way means or could mean that she would then go —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah, well, let\u2019s take context, Christian, because if you take that with everything else that she\u2019s hiding today, I —<\/p>\n

CALLER: Oh, my gosh. You know, what? I\u2019m called in. I have to go. I\u2019m sorry.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s a shame. Why didn\u2019t you call earlier?<\/p>\n

CALLER: ‘Cause, ummm… That\u2019s the way it goes. Ha! Sorry.<\/p>\n

RUSH: It\u2019s my fault, okay. Fine, all right. That\u2019s the way it goes. It\u2019s the way it goes. ‘Screw you, Rush.\u2019 It\u2019s my fault. Bye, Christian.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: To the phones we continue, Rapid City, South Dakota. Tom, it\u2019s nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir. CALLER: Hello, Rush. Welcome back. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: Mark did a wonderful job. RUSH: I appreciate knowing that. I heard that from a lot of people. CALLER: I was going to ask […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nSotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: To the phones we continue, Rapid City, South Dakota. Tom, it\u2019s nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir. CALLER: Hello, Rush. Welcome back. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: Mark did a wonderful job. RUSH: I appreciate knowing that. I heard that from a lot of people. CALLER: I was going to ask […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/\",\"name\":\"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T02:10:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-23T18:53:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: To the phones we continue, Rapid City, South Dakota. Tom, it\u2019s nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir. CALLER: Hello, Rush. Welcome back. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: Mark did a wonderful job. RUSH: I appreciate knowing that. I heard that from a lot of people. CALLER: I was going to ask […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/","name":"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T02:10:20+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-23T18:53:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/14\/sotomayor_hearing_sound_bites\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sotomayor Hearing: Sound Bites"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32953"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32953"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32953\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394129,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32953\/revisions\/394129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}