{"id":365313,"date":"2020-09-22T16:20:05","date_gmt":"2020-09-22T20:20:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=365313"},"modified":"2020-09-23T15:44:47","modified_gmt":"2020-09-23T19:44:47","slug":"skip-the-judiciary-committee-circus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/09\/22\/skip-the-judiciary-committee-circus\/","title":{"rendered":"Skip the Judiciary Committee Circus"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: I just got the nicest note from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, and he wrote about… He\u2019s entered a blog post, a blog entry on a suggestion that I made yesterday here behind the Golden EIB Microphone, and that is to skip the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings<\/a>. Especially now that we\u2019ve got the votes. McConnell says he\u2019s got the votes. Lindsey Graham says we\u2019ve got them, and the count…<\/p>\n

\"\"We\u2019ve obviously got the votes; so what\u2019s the point of the hearing? The point I made yesterday is we don\u2019t need to open this up so that whoever the nominee is can be Kavanaughed, or Borked, or Thomased . And I didn\u2019t know this, but Trump himself retweeted my point this morning. “Rush Limbaugh calls for Trump Supreme Court nomination to skip the Judiciary Committee hearings and go straight to a floor vote,” and they actually quote me accurately here.<\/p>\n

“I want the Judiciary Committee — that could be great if it were skipped. We don\u2019t need to open that up for whatever length of time, so that whoever this nominee is can be Kavanaughed, or Borked, or Thomased … especially when it\u2019s not even required.” It\u2019s not constitutionally required that the Judiciary Committee conduct hearings.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a tradition that\u2019s evolved, but it is not required. There is no obligation, which Ed Morrissey also quotes and backs up. Now, the reason for his note to me. Morrissey says, “Look, I get your point, and I think it\u2019s a great point. I think it\u2019s a really brilliant point.<\/p>\n

“But there\u2019s a part of me, Rush, that thinks that it could be very worthwhile to have the committee conduct hearings because the Democrats will so embarrass themselves that we could end up with even more votes for the nominee because the Democrats are guaranteed to go overboard on this and make fools of themselves, to embarrass themselves so thoroughly that they could lose even more seats.”<\/p>\n

I understand that temptation. You know, I myself am all for the Democrats informing everybody in this country who they really are. I\u2019m all for the American people seeing in all their glory exactly the reprobates the Democrats can be as they set out to destroy a woman while claiming to care mostly about women and their plight and so forth and so on.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I want to read to you the last couple of paragraphs of Ed Morrissey\u2019s post today in which he reacts to my suggestion that the Judiciary Committee hearings be dispensed with since the votes are there. Just do the vote and be done with this, confirm the nominee and move on. “In this instance,” writes Mr. Morrissey, “the first impulse would be to keep the process as normal as possible, however.<\/p>\n

“That would give political cover to the more vulnerable or less committed members of the Senate Republican caucus, especially those who are throwing in now on the basis of normalcy.” Now, what he means, I think here, is go ahead. I can see it. We can eliminate the hearings. No need to turn this into another combat arena since it\u2019s not necessary to get votes.<\/p>\n

And it would provide cover to some of the less committed members of the Republican caucus who are throwing in now on the basis of normalcy. Meaning: This has been an odd year. It\u2019s been one upheaval after another. Can\u2019t we just have some normalcy? And if we\u2019ve got the votes, can\u2019t we just do the vote, get the confirmation done, and move on?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Why do we have to open ourselves up to another circus? “On the other hand, one has to wonder just how many Senate Republicans on the committee really want to provide Democrats with another opportunity for nationally televised character assassination. McConnell might do some of those a favor by getting Lindsey Graham to push for an immediate vote without a hearing.”<\/p>\n

So, “[o]n the other hand, one has to wonder just how many Senate Republicans on the committee really want to provide Democrats with another opportunity for … character assassination.” Let\u2019s go back and look at Kavanaugh. Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) He\u2019s screening calls. How close did they come to derailing Kavanaugh? Seriously. How close did they…?<\/p>\n

(interruption) We think that Kavanaugh was… I think they came dangerously close to derailing Kavanaugh. If Kavanaugh had not stood up for himself and taken out after the Democrats for what they were literally trying to do to him, if he had played it by the book (impression), “I will be polite. I will not allow these people to get a rise out of me,” blah, blah, blah.<\/p>\n

If he had just gone ahead and let this stuff happen and thrown it up, I don\u2019t know. They were working on Jeff Flake. They were working on all of them. Remember this? There was a full-court press on all these Republicans to do a new FBI investigation. Do we really want to go through this again? How close did they come to derailing Kavanaugh? In my memory, it\u2019s a lot closer than any of us remember.<\/p>\n

But other than that, why…? Have we already forgotten the utter hell it was for Kavanaugh and his wife? So we\u2019re gonna open this up again. We\u2019re gonna subject one of our nominees — who doesn\u2019t need the hearings, she\u2019s already… Whoever the nominee is, is already gonna have been vetted by this committee for her current judicial seat. She\u2019s gonna already have been vetted.<\/p>\n

Why do we want to subject whoever the nominee is gonna be to another round of intense lies and distortions and character assassination and professional murder when it isn\u2019t necessary? I don\u2019t know, you know, how many Republicans might want to provide Democrats with this opportunity for nationally televised character assassination.<\/p>\n

For example, let\u2019s look at Romney. Let\u2019s say Romney\u2019s vote is really reluctant here. His vote is not because he likes the nominees, or not because he\u2019s being understandably supportive of his own party\u2019s president nominating somebody very reasonable. Whoever the pick is, is gonna be eminently qualified. There will be no reason to not support the nominee.<\/p>\n

\"\"But let\u2019s say Romney would really rather not because he doesn\u2019t want Trump to get anything that he wants. So what if we do hearings and somebody brings something up, raises some allegation. It wouldn\u2019t take much, and Romney would say, “I\u2019m very troubled by what I heard in the hearings today. I might have to rethink, uh, the way, uh, I\u2019m going to vote on this,” \u2019cause you just know or suspect that this animus that these Never Trumpers have for Trump has not abated.<\/p>\n

Their announced support for the nominee doesn\u2019t have anything to do with the fact that they\u2019ve all of a sudden softened on their dislike and opposition to Trump. It has to do with either local political realities like Romney\u2019s constituents in Utah demanding that he vote for a nominee this qualified on these particular issues. Ditto, Cory Gardner, Colorado; Lamar Alexander, Tennessee.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s probably not because Romney is all of a sudden thinks, “You know, this Trump guy\u2019s not as bad as I thought. Look at this pick. Trump\u2019s got, you know, a greater future than maybe I thought.” I don\u2019t think it\u2019s that. But then Ed says at the end of his piece, “At the very least, it would be one less circus in a year with more clowns than usual,” meaning all of 2020. “But one does also have to wonder whether it might benefit Republicans to allow Democrats to get shown on television going full nutter just days before an election. That might be valuable in itself.”<\/p>\n

Okay. They Borked Bork, and they denied him his seat. They attempted to Bork Thomas, and look what it took for Thomas to get confirmed. It was a nightmare, and I don\u2019t think that Clarence Thomas would want to relive any part of it — and Kavanaugh, ditto. There were also attempts… We\u2019ve forgotten. They reduced Sam Alito\u2019s wife to literal tears in the confirmation hearings, and then they started making fun of her for crying as not being a strong enough political wife.<\/p>\n

She was reduced to tears over the lies they were telling about her husband. Now, I understand the temptation to have Democrats go nuts on a woman. I can understand it. I\u2019ve even said to friends, “I would love to see them go nuts and try to destroy an Hispanic female in an election year.” But the thing is, folks, they\u2019ll do it. You have to assume they will do everything and then more than you can even conceive of.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a question of will or if, maybe, or might. They will. They will do whatever they can and then some to destroy whoever this nominee is. And they won\u2019t care a whit about the fallout. They\u2019ll have to do it to satisfy their lunatic base. If their behavior during hearings results in them losing national support, Biden losing support, it won\u2019t matter if — in their minds — they\u2019ve placated their base.<\/p>\n

\"\"That is first and last a requirement that they all, on the Democrat side, feel. From Chuck You Schumer on down to Amy Klobuchar, they\u2019ve got to satisfy the base, and that means the attempt to destroy whoever this nominee is — and I mean literally destroy. When it\u2019s over, they want to quit. When it\u2019s over, they want to slink away and never, ever again go to their work, go to their jobs, and never, ever again want to go through any of this.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what it means to try to destroy a nominee — and do not look at it as a possibility, as a maybe.<\/p>\n

It will happen if there are hearings.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, look, folks, do not doubt me on this. The Democrat Party, they\u2019re the ones threatening to abolish the Electoral College. They are promising to pack the court. They are threatening all this stuff too. They\u2019re gonna add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states, adding four new Democrat senators in perpetuity.<\/p>\n

These are the people that impeached a president in an election year. They slimed Kavanaugh. And I don\u2019t know what you all remember, but it was close. They came close to derailing that nomination. And they were working on Republican senators to soften and change their votes. Remember the picture we\u2019ve shown you of Dianne Feinstein bullying Lisa Murkowski? We had Chris Coons, that bald-headed little guy from Delaware. He was harassing Jeff Flake, although it didn\u2019t require much harassment.<\/p>\n

I mean, now they\u2019re out there threatening to riot and burn down the country if they don\u2019t get their way. Well, screw them. But my point is, you give them the chance with Judiciary Committee hearings, and they will not disappoint. They will go as low as they have to for as often as they have to. It\u2019s who they are. And we\u2019ve already seen it. We already know who they are. We already know what they\u2019re capable of. We don\u2019t need for the American people to see it again. They saw what happened to Kavanaugh. They haven\u2019t forgotten it.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Let me just have a few more comments on this idea of eliminating the Judiciary Committee hearings. I\u2019m getting tons of reaction, I mean, my email and other forms of reaching me are in overload here, and I\u2019m surprised there\u2019s one reaction I have not heard yet. Here, before I get to that one, here\u2019s one: “Mr. Limbaugh, I\u2019m torn on this because I think some Republican squishes might actually fold if we have the hearings.”<\/p>\n

Yeah, see, that\u2019s one of the things. You start these hearings and we\u2019re dealing with people who will not disappoint you in how low they will go. And we know how malleable a lot of Republicans are. Think “linguini-spined” if you don\u2019t know what “malleable” means. “But despite that, Mr. Limbaugh, I would love to see the Democrats show their true colors again right before the election.”<\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s examine that. See, this is one of the things — I guess it\u2019s necessary, but how can people forget what they did to Kavanaugh? I mean, if you want to show the Democrats in their natural state close to an election, just make some ads with some of the stuff they were saying about Brett Kavanaugh in \u2019em. Why give them another clear shot at yet another nominee who is imminently qualified and literally does not deserve the smear that she is gonna get simply because she\u2019s been nominated and she is a conservative.<\/p>\n

\"\"Whoever Trump picks, if there are hearings — and, you know, even if there are not, this woman is gonna get smeared like you can\u2019t believe. Why give them all of this free TV time in the hopes of convincing the American people the Democrats are really as bad as we say? How can they already not know this? How many undecideds do you think there really are out there now? How many people are there, in other words, that we might convince to vote for Trump if we can make the Democrats demonstrate who they are.<\/p>\n

They are burning down cities! They are promoting the looting of businesses not their own. They are defunding and trying to get rid of the police. Their states are on fire. What more do we need to do to have these people demonstrate who they are? The fact of the matter is, folks, it doesn\u2019t matter who they are to their own voters.<\/p>\n

In fact, their own voters want more of this. Their own voters want the destruction of private property they don\u2019t own. They want the destruction of American cities. They want the destruction of people that they disagree with. They want the destruction of whoever Trump would pick to be on the Supreme Court. Their voters want this.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re talking about whatever percentage of voters are undecided who could then be influenced to vote against Democrats because of the way the Democrats behave in these hearings. Have they forgotten how Kavanaugh was treated? Can they not see what Democrats are doing? I know. I know. “Rush, they don\u2019t know it\u2019s Democrats doing it. The media is not telling them. The media is not even telling them that these cities are on fire.” I know. I know.<\/p>\n

Anyway, back to this observation. “Mr. Limbaugh, in the end it\u2019s probably moot because our side will not dispense with the tradition of hearings, although they might abruptly end them if Democrats get out of hand.” “If” the Democrats get out of hand? (laughing)<\/p>\n

The one reaction I thought I would get to this that I have not received from anybody yet is something along these lines. “Rush, come on. We can\u2019t cancel the hearings. Can you imagine what the media would say about the Republicans if they try to do that? This is as big a tradition in American jurisprudence and politics as anything is. And if the Republicans come along and cancel the hearings, it\u2019s gonna make it look like they got something to hide with their nominee that they don\u2019t want anybody to know and it\u2019s just gonna give the Democrats a leg up.”<\/p>\n

In other words, people are gonna be asking what are the Republicans afraid of? That would be my reaction if somebody were to come to me and I hadn\u2019t already said that we should maybe think about not even doing the hearings \u2019cause we\u2019ve got the votes. And if I hadn\u2019t come close to making up my mind, that would be my reaction. What are you afraid of? And there are things, frankly, to be afraid of, and they are Republican spines.<\/p>\n

Once those hearings start and the Democrats behave as we know they\u2019re gonna behave, I think all bets are off. But I don\u2019t think the hearings are gonna get canceled. I think that McConnell and Lindsey Graham will get together and they\u2019ll do the hearings and they\u2019ll have some boundaries that the Democrats have to follow, maintain, stay within. And if they don\u2019t, then the hearings will get canceled or whatever.<\/p>\n

\"\"I\u2019ve got another thought that says, “Hey, Rush, my fear is the Republicans are on the way to losing the Senate. Having the hearings might save the Senate.” What do you think of that? Republicans on the way to losing the Senate in the upcoming elections, but if you do the hearings and the American people get to see the Democrats in full glory, then it could be Wellstone memorial type results.<\/p>\n

Now, the Wellstone memorial argues against me, I\u2019ll admit that. The Wellstone memorial in 2002, the Democrats misbehaved so badly at what was a memorial, slash, funeral for one of their own senators that the Republicans gained seats in off-year elections where they traditionally lose big time. And it was the Wellstone memorial that did it.<\/p>\n

So the potential for the Democrats committing one form of political suicide is there with hearings. So is some other stuff that we would not consider to be positive outcomes. But the votes that have solidified here again, just to wrap it up, Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, Cory Gardner, Romney was an unknown until he made his announcement today.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Houston, Texas. Jim, great to have you, sir. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hey, Rush, it\u2019s Jim. Listening for 25 or 30 years, I can\u2019t remember. It\u2019s been a long time. Quick question. Snerdley said get to the point. It\u2019s this. I understand your concern that some of the Republicans might “linguini out” if they have the hearings. But also, if they have the hearings — on the other side — and the Democrats do the same thing they did the last three times, don\u2019t they run the risk of alienating all the suburban women voters? That\u2019s really my question.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You just said it. “If the Democrats do again what they\u2019ve done the last three times, don\u2019t they run the risk of alienating…?” If they haven\u2019t alienated suburban voters yet, what the hell do they have to do to do it?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, this would do it.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Why, if it hasn\u2019t done it yet, if Kavanaugh didn\u2019t do it? Simply because this would be done to a woman?<\/p>\n

CALLER: That\u2019s what I think is the difference.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. Well, I will grant that it\u2019s possible. I cannot hide my frustration, though. The idea that we need the Democrats to show people who they really are? They\u2019re burning down the country! They tried to destroy Kavanaugh. They have tried to destroy every other judicial nominee that has been made. They tried to destroy Gorsuch.<\/p>\n

\"\"They didn\u2019t have as much of a runway there. It was one of the reasons he was such a good choice. But this is something that they\u2019re not gonna be able to avoid doing because this, to them, is… If this court ends up being 6-3 conservative, this is one of the primary insurance policies they\u2019ve got for losing elections that has just been taken away from \u2019em.<\/p>\n

They are going to be loaded for bear. So they will behave in ways that you hope, and they will attempt to destroy whoever the nominee is, be it Amy Coney Barrett or Judge Lagoa. “We need to do it. We need to let the hearings happen so that people will see just exactly who the Democrats are so that it will hurt them with suburban voters.” I understand the frustration.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re sitting out there saying, “How can suburban women support them now?” At least I am. But suburban women… We\u2019re talking college-educated suburban women, and they have been propagandized in college, on campus. They\u2019ve been programmed.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Looky here. The White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany at the press briefing today was asked by the NBC correspondent why the president retweeted my suggestion that the hearings of the Judiciary Committee not be held.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: You know, little did I know, even after 32-some-odd years, I still end up being surprised over the kinds of things that can fire people up. Now, normally I would know that like I would know how to pour a glass of water. I mean, my instincts on knowing what people are gonna be interested in, what they\u2019re gonna be passionate about, are undisputable. But even I sometimes end up being surprised.<\/p>\n

And my little offhand suggestion that maybe we don\u2019t even need to do the hearings. We\u2019ve got the votes. We don\u2019t need to engage in confirmation hearings, I offered. I pointed out they are not required, they are not mentioned in the Constitution. And you may not know this. But there is no mandate that the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct hearings into every judicial nominee. It\u2019s something that has evolved under the Senate\u2019s advise and consent provision. This is how the Senate has chosen to engage in advise and consent. But they\u2019re not mandated.<\/p>\n

If the Senate wants, Mitch McConnell can get together with Lindsey Grahamnesty, and they can say we\u2019re not gonna do hearings on this nominee, and there\u2019s nothing to stop them other than if they think it\u2019s a political calculation, it\u2019s a mistake. “We better have the hearings. The people might blame us.”<\/p>\n

\"\"So that\u2019s why they never cancel the hearings. I just threw it out there. And, man, it has gotten beaucoup reaction out there. The president retweeted it after Media Matters raised hell about it. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has written an entire blog post about it. And best I can tell, most of people politely and respectfully and very sadly disagree with me on it. They think that there\u2019s value in the Democrats being who they are for the American people to see so close to an election.<\/p>\n

And we\u2019ve had people on the phones today — you\u2019ve heard it – “Oh, come on, Rush. You don\u2019t want to cancel the fun. We gotta have these Democrats, we need them to try to destroy the nominee so these suburban women see who the Democrats are.” And, of course, my reaction is, for crying out loud. If the American people don\u2019t know who the Democrats are by now, they\u2019re never gonna know who they are. “Yeah, but, Rush, this is a woman they would be mistreating.” That hasn\u2019t stopped \u2019em before.<\/p>\n

Look at what they did to Miguel Estrada\u2019s wife. Do you recall what happened to her after he was put through these rigors? Miscarriage and all kinds of stuff. Sam Alito\u2019s wife was reduced to tears and ran out of the Senate hearing room because of what they were doing to her husband, and then they had the audacity to criticize her for being weak spined.<\/p>\n

The Democrats, I mean, look what they were doing to Kavanaugh\u2019s wife. You think they haven\u2019t done stuff like this to women already? They most assuredly have. Look, I know the frustration. Folks, I have whatever frustration you feel about this, multiply it times 10. It\u2019s my entire life. I\u2019m frustrated that the American people — I\u2019m frustrated we\u2019re where we are. I don\u2019t understand that we\u2019re where we are. I don\u2019t know why the Democrats haven\u2019t disqualified themselves years ago. Now they\u2019re burning down cities.<\/p>\n

But look at what they\u2019re getting away with. They have convinced people that Black Lives Matter is a civil rights organization, when Black Lives Matter admits that they are a communist front. Well, yeah. Look at how the Democrats treated Kathleen Willey who was nothing but sexually abused by Bill Clinton. Look at how they treated Juanita Broaddrick. Look at how they treated Paula Jones.<\/p>\n

And that was the Bill Clinton war room destroying those women. It didn\u2019t matter. There were still American female journalists who wanted to give Clinton a Lewinsky every night for keeping those women away and for protecting abortion. Nina Burleigh was her name, TIME magazine. She publicly wrote that she wanted to give Clinton a Lewinsky every night as gratitude for keeping abortion legal.<\/p>\n

And all of you who want this nominee subjected to this stuff, it\u2019s obvious you have never been subjected to it yourselves. “Oh, yeah, I think this nominee, let the Democrats try to destroy \u2019em. Let the Democrats.” They nearly destroyed the life of Brett Kavanaugh. “Well, that\u2019s okay, Rush. Kavanaugh came through it okay. He\u2019s still on the court. He got confirmed. Let\u2019s let \u2019em do it. We need the American people, we need suburban women to find out who these Democrats really are.” Right. Okay.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s kind of like we need to let the Democrats win the election so the American people find out how really bad they are gonna be leading the country. Right, right, that\u2019s right. We win by losing. Why didn\u2019t I think of that? Anyway, here\u2019s the press briefing today. Kayleigh McEnany is being interrogated by Peter Alexander, the NBC White House correspondent.<\/p>\n

ALEXANDER: The president did retweet today a segment from Rush Limbaugh where Limbaugh suggested, quote, “It would be great if Republicans skipped committee hearings on this pick altogether.” Does the president want Republicans to skip committee hearings? They\u2019re a coequal branch of government. Why is he directing them to do anything?<\/p>\n

MCENANY: The president is a fan of Rush Limbaugh, appreciates his commentary, and therefore retweeted it. But we are working with the Senate right now on that confirmation process and Senator Graham has said it looks like it will be on three-day timeline.<\/p>\n