Constitution, Not Religion, Is the Bottom Line

RUSH: Here is Andrew in Belleville, Michigan. Hi and welcome to the EIB Network. Welcome.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Dittos from Michigan.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: About this Harriet Miers case, I think that there is going to be a further alienation amongst Christian conservatives, such as myself, and just conservatives maybe like Ann Coulter or Charles Krauthammer who do not represent the views that I have —
RUSH: Yeah?
CALLER: — in this, and I feel like, you know, if I look at George W. Bush, and I look at this nomination of Harriet Miers, what I see in the whole thing is that he nominated her because he is a born-again Christian as well. He had serious problems with addictions to alcohol, and he gave his life to Christ, and was changed by that, and I believe he saw the same in her as he saw in himself. And that’s why I think a lot of Christians like myself who are born-again as well feel that way right now. I do not agree with Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer and a whole bunch of other people who have asked that she, you know; resign her resignation and all that. And I think that this is going to be a further divide between us, because I personally feel let down with this right now. And it just really goes to show that I think a lot of the Christian base out there that went out to man the phones like so many people did, such as myself or George W. Bush —
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: — who really believed in where he came from because he is a born-again Christian —
RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: — feel alienated. That’s just what I feel right now.
RUSH: Well, interesting you say this. I had some conversations with people today predicting this very thing, because obviously you had many of the nation’s religious leaders uniting behind Harriet Miers after they had been assured of her vote on Roe vs. Wade, which, believe me, was going to be problematic if we ever got to hearings. I mean that would have been full of fireworks. And I said to these people, it’s a shame because these nominations are not about one issue, and they’re not about one culture, they’re not about life. It’s about the Constitution. Even if we can be assured that her vote on Roe is right, I want to know that just speaking for myself, I’d like to be assured of why she thinks Roe is bad, not just because of it’s wrong to kill babies. There’s far more to Roe than that. I know a lot of people who are for abortion who think Roe vs. Wade is bad law. The whole problem with Roe vs. Wade is that nine judges — well, seven of them in this case, but all it takes is five, decided that the Constitution grants a constitutional right to kill babies. And it doesn’t.
Now, if they can start that, and they did, and set the precedent that the Constitution says things it doesn’t, then it doesn’t mean anything at all. As to the religious aspect of this, I know that there’s a feeling of disappointment amongst some religious conservatives today, but I would hope, and I would predict that with the next nominee, that everybody is going to end up being back on board and oriented toward the same objective that you were oriented with toward Harriet Miers. All the other nominees the president has put up have been of the same mind of the Constitution where it comes to Roe vs. Wade — Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor. There’s a great field of people out there. Don’t get caught in this trap thinking Harriet Miers was the only salvation for Roe vs. Wade, because that’s not the case. But it goes beyond Roe vs. Wade, something I also said in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that I wrote. My prediction to you is that by the time all the dust settles here and we get the next nominee, you’re going to be just as happy and you’ll be even happier because there will be unity behind the nominee, and this nominee will still be of the constitutional mind-set that will please you and satisfy you where this issue that matters so greatly comes down. So mark my words on this. Don’t give up the ship yet. The ship’s just now leaving. That’s the point. Make sure that you are on it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I know you’re still out there, and I’m sure that you represent a body of thought that is in the Christian conservative community. You should know that the Washington Post uncovered a speech and published excerpts which then led people to see the whole speech earlier this week, might have been yesterday, she delivered this speech ten or 12 years ago down in Dallas. And if you read the speech, maybe we can get it and post it on the website just to further your understanding here. I’m really uncomfortable with this, folks, because the woman has done an honorable thing here. I have tried not to pile on and join the chorus of people who have made this personal about her throughout all of this, but I don’t want anybody laboring under any misconceptions here, either. I know this speech is ten or 12 years old and there could have been changes since then, but since there’s not much else to go on… I mean, people looked at this yesterday and got very concerned about it, even some who were really holding down the fort in her camp and still trying to rally support for her. The speech shows that her views on abortion are troubling.
They were of great concern to a lot of people, not just non-Christians, but some Christians as well. There were also a lot of Christian leaders like Gary Bauer and others who opposed the nomination. The whole of the conservative Christian, conservative community was not united on her, either. And don’t make the mistake of thinking so. The issue here is how somebody approached their role and how they interpret the Constitution, and that’s the bottom line. It doesn’t matter whether it’s abortion or illegal immigration or the war on terrorism or property rights. If you don’t have a properly functioning federal government where each branch respects the other, then liberty itself is endangered, and you have to have people on the court understand what its limited role is if we are to change the role that the court now plays in our society.
Doesn’t this bother any of you? I was thinking about this last night. I was on vacation once back in the nineties, and I was out in my adopted hometown of Sacramento. Some abortion case came down the line. The Supreme Court decided some peripheral abortion case, and somehow the local TV stations knew that I was in town, even though I was not working, I was on vacation, and somehow got hold of me, and one of them said will you grant us an interview? I said okay, and they asked me what I thought of the decision. I don’t even remember the specifics of the decision. But that was the instant for me that I began to realize, this is just a political decision and they’re asking me, a political figure, what I think of this decision. I think it was something I favored, but that’s when the thought struck me. The court is not supposed to be the final arbiter of political and social issues in this country. That’s Congress and the president, the elected representatives of the people decide these things, not these members of courts. But the fact that so many people have gradually just accepted over time, because it’s happened slowly, that the Supreme Court’s the final arbiter. Of course, the left has long glommed onto that because they’re winning, they’ve got more judges on the court than we do, and they’re instituting their personal policy preferences, and liberalism is being instituted as law by judges. And thereby takes it out of the arena of ideas and debate. That’s gotta stop. The idea that the people look at the Supreme Court — say a controversial issue. Make it up, something besides abortion, or use abortion in your mind if that works best. We’re going to say that the US Supreme Court’s the final authority, once they decide, issue’s over, sorry. That’s not the role of the court as proscribed by the founders, read the Federalist papers or the Constitution itself and you’ll find that that’s not the case, it’s just evolved that way. Well, that’s got to change and that’s only going to change with the right people on the court who understand how this bastardization has occurred and are eager to roll it back and return the court to its original function. If you have somebody who’s really good on say the abortion vote and you want to put her there because she’s going to do the right thing, fine and dandy, but what about her understanding of all the rest of this? Because even when the court, if it ever does, overturn Roe vs. Wade, I have news for you, it’s still going to be legal in this country. All that’s going to happen is the states will pick it up and debate it and it’s going to be legal in some states and illegal in others.
END TRANSCRIPT