RUSH: I want to play this sound bite from Senator Schumer once again, for those of you just joining us. I’m very happy with this Supreme Court pick. I’m very happy that the left is out there having conniptions. I told the audience in the first hour, “I don’t want to hear any calls complaining about what the left is saying about this guy. That’s what we want them to do.” We want them to be who they are. We want them to come out of the closet. No more masquerade balls. No more hiding behind masks. Be honest about who they are and when it’s a court nomination, they do because it’s so vital. So you’ve got the NAGs, the National Association of Gals is going to be marching at the Supreme Court at four o’clock this afternoon. I hope they burn a bra. I hope they take Maureen Dowd with them. Go get Molly Yard. I know she passed away, but get a cut-out doll or something. Go back, do whatever they have to do to be who they are, because this, folks, is a battle we want and it is a battle we can win. It’s about time. The American people will be paying close attention. It’s time to educate them finally on the role of the court in our society, and in that regard I want to go back and play something for you just to show you how ridiculous it’s getting. What sitting ducks the left makes of themselves. Let’s go back to Senator Schumer — and again, I think get him out there all the time, give him his own 24-hour cable channel. Call it the All Schumer Service: ASS. Here’s Chuck Schumer, press conference this morning on Capitol Hill.
CHUCKY: It’s sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor, who would unify us.
RUSH: Stop the tape. Stop, stop, stop. I kind of missed that the first time it went by. Sandra Day O’Connor unified us. Sandra Day O’Connor unified us? For five years, ladies and gentlemen, Senator Schumer and his cronies have been yakking, “We are the most divided in our history.” They’ve been complaining and whining and moaning about how divided we are. They said Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, and he’s been a divider. They have been upset that we’re not unified. Is Chuck Schumer a United States senator or is he Homer Simpson? Because if they want to run around say, “We need somebody who’s going to unify us, keep us unified! Sandra Day O’Connor united us and we need to stay united.” I know he speaks with a forked tongue, but this is going to demonstrate that the media listens with forked ears, because whatever these guys say they’re going to get away with saying, but they’re not going to get away with it here. That’s the whole point. Now, the first caller we had today was from South Carolina. Was the name Cliff? Yeah, and I bet Cliff that Alito gets 65 votes. Cliff doesn’t believe it. Cliff thinks he might win but he’s afraid of a filibuster. I pointed out that his senator, Lindsey Graham (“Vice President” Graham), has already assured everybody there will not be a filibuster of this nominee, and what he said was that Joseph Alito doesn’t satisfy the requirement of “extreme circumstances,” not as far as the Republicans are concerned.
The Democrats may. Let them. Here we have a guy who’s been on the federal bench for 15 years. He’s been confirmed twice by unanimous, 100-to-nothing votes. He’s on the Third Circuit. He has more experience on the bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 70 years. Let the Democrats say that this is a guy that triggers the extreme circumstances clause in the gang of 14 agreement that allows them to filibuster. That’s exactly what we want. It’s time to get rid of the filibuster, too. That thing is lurking out there. That thing is unconstitutional. Go ahead and nuke it to smithereens as well. This is not the time to be frightened, folks. This is not the time. I’m telling you, if you still have it in your head, if it still courses through your veins that these Democrats are smart like foxes and they outsmart us every time and they’re totally unified and they come up with these brilliant strategies and they get us to step in it, it’s the exactly opposite. If anybody is running rope-a-dopes on anybody, it’s George W. Bush running rope-a-dopes on these people. They’re the ones that step in it, they’re the ones that create alternative realities, they’re the ones that create fantasy worlds in which they then choose to live, and each time they do so they get smacked upside the head with reality every so often, and we’re going to smack them upside the head with reality on this one, too. It’s not time to be defensive. It’s not time to be afraid.
It’s not time to be even offended when they come out and all these things. Just encourage them, and don’t even enter into debates with them. Just say, “You know, you’re not saying that loud enough.” If some liberal comes up to you and says, “Yeah, this guy is going to make sure abortion takes place in back alleys. He’s going to make sure there’s discrimination and he’s going to make sure that there’s slavery all over,” say…
“Really? You think that? If you think that, you better go out and tell a whole lot more people!”
Because there’s not a person in this country aside from the wacko kooks that already believe it who are going to believe it. If there is an extreme element in this country, it’s the wacko left, and we want them to display. Now, I made this bet with Cliff in South Carolina. A friend of mine just sent me a note that National Review Online has a blog called Bench Memos. They got a bunch of blogs up there. They have The Corner; they have TKS; they Have Bench Memos, which is where they monitor this sort of stuff, and there’s a prediction there by Matthew J. Frank. Now, his prediction went up at 9:33 this morning, so his prediction predates mine. He said, “Until I take a closer look I’m refraining from commenting on Alito’s jurisprudence, but politically his nomination is brilliant and may prove to be the hinge on which some important history turns.” Now, Matthew Frank is a lawyer. He’s a brilliant lawyer on abortion rights cases and other things, too. Just to give you a little biographical sketch of him. He said, “There can be no doubts about the qualifications or the depth of knowledge required to serve on the Supreme Court of a nominee who has served on a federal circuit court for 15 years without one black mark against his ethics or his competence there. So everything will turn on just what Senator Schumer has been harping on the last four years. What Samuel Alito thinks about the Constitution and about the role of the judge under that document, the Schumer Wing of the Democratic Party brought to a fever pitch by People for the American Way,” and, by the way, let Ralph Neas be on TV all the time, too!
Put the guy out there. Let the American people hear what he has to say. These guys ought to move front and center instead of just hiding behind press releases and memos and TV commercials and their secret memos back and forth to the Democrats on the judiciary committee. Anyway, as Matthew Frank says, “The Schumer wing of the party will shrilly denounce Alito and demand that every tactic be used by compliant senators to defeat his assent to the Supreme Court. Bush has effectively said, ‘Bring it on!’ Now the question is, ‘Will they bring it?’ Will Democrat senators do the bidding of their party’s activist groups in sufficient numbers to cause Alito’s nomination any serious trouble or even mildly bothersome delay?” Matthew Franks says, “I don’t think so. I think it’s largely been bluff and bluster. The president’s called the bluff. Schumer and a few others will attempt to give Alito heartburn during the hearings. I hope the judge is entirely forthcoming and answer the questions from senators of both parties, but whatever answers he gives, here’s what I predict: There will be no filibuster attempt. If [Dingy Harry] doesn’t quash the idea himself, he’ll be persuaded to do so by his own caucus. A significant number of Democratic senators who announced themselves very concerned about Alito’s presumptive views on a woman’s right to choose and other matters will nevertheless vote for him in the end. No more than one or two Republican senators will vote against him. Arlen Specter will not be one of those opposed and the final vote in favor of Alito will be more than 60 Senators, possibly more than 65,” which is what I said. I predicted 65 votes, made a bet, friendly wager. I will pay off if I lose with a couple of EIB golf shirts. Cliff in South Carolina has to keep listening to the program if he loses and I win — which of course he’s not losing. You cannot lose anything if your punishment is to continue to listen to this program.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I’m still laughing here, folks, over Senator Schumer saying that Sandra Day O’Connor “united us” and that we needed a pick like Sandra Day O’Connor because Bush needs to unite the country. The fact of the matter is that it was the Supreme Court with O’Connor as the so-called swing vote that has divided us. The Supreme Court, in its current structure, deciding political and social cases in this country rather than just legal cases, has done more to divide this country — and that’s a bunch of liberals by the way, putting their own personal policy preferences into the law. That’s done more to divide this country than Bush or any president. (interruption) Well, you throw Clinton in there because he nominated some of these people but the fact of the matter is the court does more dividing of people than uniting than anybody wants to admit. If Schumer wants to help unite the nation, a good way for him to start would be for him to resign, and then Dan Rather should have resigned. That would have united the country. They really want to talk about uniting the country, shut up! By the way, here’s more of the leftists coming out of the woodwork on Sam Alito, this from the PR Newswire: “The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:
“How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice? It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns. In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. ‘Earth to Sammy — who needs legal machine guns?’ asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. ‘The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.'” So the Brady bunch is calling him machine gun Sammy today in their press release. (Laughing.) Bring it on. Just bring it on! Machine gun Sammy! That’s Judge Sam Alito. I got a pretty good e-mail from a subscriber, Jeremy Vincent, at RushLimbaugh.com. “Hey, El Rushbo, since when is the left concerned about uniting the country? Gay marriage, abortion, ACLU, banning Christmas, harsh punishment for sex offenders, the war, big government, et cetera, et cetera. These are all leftist positions that polarize the country and ironically enough subjects that the court will undoubtedly rule upon them in the near future. It seems as though Bush is trying to unite the majority’s voice in this country on not leaving social matters to a small group of neo-socialists.” Great comment. Again, that’s from Jeremy Vincent. He’s from Richmond, Virginia. Here’s Patrica in Belleville, Illinois. Hi. I’m glad you waited, and welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I just want to say that I’m thrilled that the president did not cave in to the feminist agenda. I guess I come from one of those old-fashioned dysfunctional homes where a strong man was there all the time, and that’s what makes me feel good, to maintain the natural order of things, a solid, strong, capable man in a leadership or powerful role —
RUSH: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What about the fact that this was Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat, this was “a woman’s seat”?
CALLER: And who did Sandra Day O’Connor take it from? That was a seat held by men historically for 100 years. Just one interloping woman, suddenly it’s a woman’s seat?
RUSH: So you don’t buy into the notion that the Supreme Court ought to have quotas?
CALLER: Absolutely not. Because if women have a different view of the law based on their emotional viewpoint of the world, we’ve got a major problem. The law is objective, not subjective to PMS or heart strings or whatever it is, kittens. I don’t know what it is. Women are supposed to be treated… let me tell you something, Rush. Every woman I know, with few exceptions, are back-stabbing. You can’t trust women. Give me a straightforward, honest speaking man any day of the week — especially if they’re going to have power over me.
RUSH: (Laughing) That may be a little… Look, hold it a minute. Hold it a minute. I appreciate the sentiments out there. Some of that may be a little over the top, but there’s one thing. There’s one thing that she said that you go to the bank on: that you can’t trust women. No, I’m just kidding, Dawn! The one thing that she said that you go to bank on is somebody’s gender ought have nothing to do with interpreting the law. There isn’t female law. There’s not male law. There’s not white law, black law, orange law, or any of that. The law is the law, and we have our humanity in common, and the idea that there should be quotas on the court because only women justices could possibly understand the needs and the forces out there that affect women is just one of the reasons why this whole court has become bastardized. (interruption) Yes, Mr. Snerdley? A question. Snerdley has a question, folks. What is it? Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Yeah. Snerdley has just asked, “If that were an all-female court, would you still have the same view that gender ought not matter?” Well, that’s a pretty big “if,” but I can only answer that if every female nominee had been somebody I approved of. I mean, if you had all feminists for example on the court, we’d be in heap big doo-doo. But that’s why this stuff shouldn’t matter. But, yeah, I wouldn’t mind if Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Priscilla Owen were all on the Supreme Court.
It wouldn’t matter to me at all. You could find nine Janice Rogers Brown and put ’em on there and I would be dancing for the rest of my days. Hell’s bells, folks, absolutely. It’s the way you interpret the law, I don’t care what the gender is. If the gender gets it right then put the gender up there. But this is silly, this notion that there is the
They’re supposed to have trust in us. The more that our decisions are informed and educated, the more that trust and respect for us will flow from the highest offices. I mean, look at the left. Why do you think…? The left looks with disdain at its own voters! If you listen to the left describe their own constituency, it’s, “People can’t do anything, can’t accomplish anything, are discriminated against. They’re losers in life’s lottery; don’t have a prayer in life.” They depend on the people that elect them being dumbed down and ignorant. They depend on their own voters being as dependent as possible, on them. That’s not who we are. We don’t look at our voters that way. We don’t want them to be that way, and that’s a huge, striking difference, so I’m suggesting, bring the debate on. Let’s flush ’em out. The left, I’m sick and tired of the way they’ve been getting away with masquerading as “moderates” and “progressives.” We know who the real left is, and it’s found a home out there on the Internet with these wacko extremist blogs, and they’re exerting all the financial pressure and other types of pressure on elected Democrats. Let’s bring it to the surface. Let the Americans see just how — and I’ll tell you what. Let some mainstream Democrats find out just who it is that has destroyed their party, taken their party down the tubes, find out who these people are. There’s a lot of ground here to be gained here, folks, but it can’t happen without these fights taking place. You get into debates and then you win them, and you win them on the merits. You win them on the basis of ideas. That’s what’s great about this pick and the opportunity that it affords. Here’s Michael, a cell phone call from Lebanon, New Jersey. You’re next, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Rush, it’s an absolute pleasure to speak with you. I’ve listened to you for ten years now — and, I’ll tell you what, last week you mentioned the fact that what Bush ought to do, he ought to pull Miers and appoint the most conservative judge. I’m just waiting now for Bush to bomb Syria like you said.
RUSH: Yeah. You know, I got a lot of praise — understandably so — for that monolog last week, because I set up some circumstances. It was on the eve of this indictment, and we didn’t know who the indictment was going to be. Could be Rove, could have been Libby, could have been both. It turned out to be Libby. But I said, “There’s a way to fight this. The president, what I think he ought to do,” and in fact, I said this Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, when the news media was just alive with what turned out to be nothing but dreams, hopeful dreams and rumors, I said, “What Bush ought to do, if one of his people or two of his people are indicted is say, ‘All right, you people out there, you think that these guys have been my brain? I don’t have a brain? Rove’s been making my decisions for me? Libby’s been making Cheney’s decisions; Cheney’s been making my decisions? Let me tell you something: From now on, every decision comes from me, just as it always has. Let me tell you some of the decisions I’ve just made. First thing I’m going to do, I’m going to pull Harriet Miers’ nomination and I’m going to put somebody in there that’s going to drive you liberals crazy, and I’m going to fix the Supreme Court. I’m going to get serious on immigration. I’m tired of sending out my little hand of friendship. I’m tired of the new tone. I’ve tried working with you guys. I’ve let you write the education bill. I’ve consulted with you on the Supreme Court. You don’t have any appreciation for it. Now you want to get rid of two of my people and put them in jail? Well, fine. After I change the immigration policy and after I clamp down on the Supreme Court, then we’re going to go bomb Syria — and if Iran doesn’t get serious about taking Israel out, we’re going to bomb them, too. The hell with all this! I’ve got three years to straighten this country out. I’m, by God, going to do it, and I’m going to give you people in the media so many stories to cover, you won’t know which one to cover first, and the last thing you’ll cover is my guys being indicted because you’re going to be so worried about the other things I’m doing.” That’s what I suggested Bush do, and Michael here is calling, “Where is the bomb-Syria part and when does that start?”
We’re still waiting, but be patient.
END TRANSCRIPT