Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Now, folks, there’s all kinds of news out there that has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions last week. There’s plenty of it, and it involves electoral politics, Hillary Clinton, Algore, some other stuff out there as well. However, I do want to spend just a little bit of time here kind of… I don’t know that it’s closing the loop on everything. It’s just that I’ve had an entire weekend now to actually dig into this and figure out what actually happened and, as best I can, determine how and why it happened.

These things are of interest to me, and I do not think that these battles, these arguments, these political fights are anywhere near over. I kind of get a little irritated when I read comments from others who seem to indicate that they are. It manifests itself in a whole bunch of different ways. Like there is ongoing brand-new pressure of an age-old topic. “You Republicans, do you realize the great benefit you’ve been handed here?”

Some Republicans are saying this as well. “Do you realize the golden opportunity this Supreme Court ruling gave you? Now you’ve got this off the table! It’s a done deal. So just get off of this social issues stuff. You just got to drop the social issues.” That pressure point has been ratcheted up again, and there is something concomitant with it. You may have had heard two or three Republican presidential candidates say, “Hey, you know, I fought the good fight like everybody else did.

“But the court has spoken, and gay marriage is now the law of the land, and we must move on. We must drop it.” That is an out, I think. I think that’s an excuse. That’s an excuse for somebody who’s really telling you they don’t want the fight. And that’s not what we need, folks. I’m telling you, going into 2016 and beyond, we don’t want and don’t need people who are not willing to fight and stand up for what we believe in, stand up for the founding of this country.

“It’s now the law of the land” is an out.

Well, 20 minutes ago and 6,000 years ago, the opposite was the law of the land. Did the Democrats accept it? Did the gay activists accept it? No. They didn’t accept “the law of the land.” They’re not accepting anything that is the law of the land. They’re not accepting very much that is traditional. They’re not accepting very much that’s institutional. There’s an all-out assault and attack on everything, and specifically now religious liberty. Make no mistake about this.

I’ll get into this in due course as the program unfolds.

We telegraph that we just accept.

It’s like I told you the prominent Republican last week talking to me said, “You know, Rush, elections have consequences.”

“What does that mean?”

“Well, they won the election. They get to do what they want.”

“When’s the last time you ever heard a Democrat say ‘Ah, Republicans won. Elections have consequences. We’re not gonna fight their court nominees’?”

This is not good. This is not healthy. It’s a way out. And this whole “social issue” thing, here’s the bottom line. Look, at the risk of incurring the wrath of people on the own side of the aisle here, the simple fact of the matter is the Republican Party is not going to win another presidential election if it has as part of its official platform and behavioral characteristic the open disavowing of its voters who care about quote/unquote “social issues.” There’s simply too many of them.

If they abandon the party or sit home and don’t vote, it’s over. The Republicans aren’t gonna win diddly-squat without them. They may not like hearing it. They may not like it, period. But it’s the lay of the land and it’s the fact of the matter. But the real key here — and this is a difference, I think in going on offense and staying on defense and being willing to stay on defense. Staying on defense, that’s the easy road to take. Going on offense? Man, now, that’s rolling up your shirt sleeves and that’s gearing for battle and that’s making a commitment, and that’s hard.

But it’s the law of the land now. It’s just the social issues we’re getting. The fact of the matter is the entire time I do on this program is 26 years or so, 27, whatever it is… You know, we’re coming up on an anniversary. It’s gonna be 27, I think, on August 1st. Anyway, for the whole period of time what do we do? We get up every day and we see something that we cherish — either a person, an institution, a tradition, something — under assault, full frontal assault. So our posture each and every day, including social issues.

Our posture each and every day is defense. We haven’t had the chance to move the ball forward. We’re defending an all-out assault on everything, I mean everything we hold dear. We haven’t had a chance to actually move the ball forward. Well, we have. We just haven’t availed ourselves of the opportunity. We have had the White House for eight years in this decade, but the fact of the matter is that the social issues are in play because the Democrats put them there, not us.


RUSH: Michael in Tallahassee, Florida, it’s great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network, and thank you for calling. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Conservatives should emulate the Supreme Court and conservatives should use the same method of reading the Supreme Court ruling as the Supreme Court uses to reading the Constitution or laws. So the Supreme Court adds things to laws or the Constitution or deletes things that they don’t like. So why can’t conservatives say that they hail the Supreme Court rulings because the Supreme Court struck down subsidies for people in states that don’t have exchanges, or the Supreme Court upheld traditional marriage and denied gay marriage being legal. So why can’t we do that ’cause words don’t mean anything anymore?

RUSH: Well, look, I get your point, and I want to make your point the following way. I want to explain. My friend Andy McCarthy had a piece Saturday morning that ran on the Web at National Review Online. If I may paraphrase, his point was that the Supreme Court has abandoned law as a manner of rendering its decisions, and it has become essentially a political branch of government. And he makes the very good point. In all of these Supreme Court cases…

In every damn one of them — I don’t care if it’s gay marriage or if it’s the Affordable Care Act, or if it’s anything — there is never, ever any doubt whatsoever how the four liberal justices are going to vote. You have Breyer, you have Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg, you have Sotomayor, and you have Elena Kagan. You’ve got three women and Breyer in there. That block, there is never any doubt: They are there to advance the Democrat Party agenda. They are there to advance the leftist agenda.

There is never, ever any question in the media or anywhere else about how they’re gonna come down on any issue. But on the other side, you can’t guarantee where Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts are gonna fall, nor Kennedy. Kennedy and Roberts I think go back and forth, happily being the perceived as swing votes. But in the case-of-all five of those justices, they’re worked on by the media every case that matters. They either have puff pieces written about them or they have scathing, critical pieces written about ’em.

The other four are ignored.

There’s no question what they’re gonna do.

Given that, this court’s not even a court. It’s just a branch office — half of it’s a branch office — of the Democrat Party. And so the question then becomes: “How do we deal with and react to and treat these decisions on high from this place?” Because they have purposefully and willingly assumed this lofty position where they’re going to decide political questions, not legal. And believe me, that is one of the reasons so many people who study this and follow it are really worried, angry, upset, what have you.

Because we’re not getting the law out of these people. We’re getting politics. As designed, by the way, by the left. This is exactly… They’ve corrupted as much of the judiciary as they can by putting fellow traveler politicians on courts as judges. Well, they were judges to begin with, but they’re political hacks first and judges second. And they’re all over the federal bench — both at the district level and the appellate level — and they end up on the Supreme Court.

So this was a political question. This case should have been rejected. A Supreme Court that deals with constitutionality and the law would look at this and say, “This is not a question for us. This a question for the American people. Marriage has always been the purview of the states. We’re not gonna supersede that! It’s not our job to take that over. We have no business deciding this.” That’s the legal analysis of this.

But that would not sit well with the Democrat Party and the leftists, because the court is supposed to be a branch of the Democrat Party where the stamp of finality is to be placed on political issues. That’s why I’ll tell you something. When I hear Republicans say, “Well, okay, that ends that because that’s now the law of the land.” No, it’s not! It was the political decision of the time made by the court. It’s not the law of the land. I mean, it is the law of the land, but the correct reaction to something like that is, if you’re running for president:

“Elect me so I can put people on this court are gonna go back to judging the law and not imposing their own personal political views on us.” That’s the answer. Somebody comes along and says, “Well, you know, this is the law of the land! I think we’ve just gotta move on.” Do you ever hear the left say, when they lose a decision, “Well, that’s the law of the land”? When they lose a decision, they start attacking everybody!

I’m not saying emulate them in the way they go about personally destroying people. The point is, when it comes their political agenda, anything and everything goes. And if we’re not on even the same playing field, it’s all academic. Let me give you… Grab audio sound bite number one. I have a little montage here from Friday and Saturday of people on… Let’s see. I guess this is basically people on Fox, various programs on Fox, analyzing the Supreme Court decision here.

CHRIS WALLACE: While conservatives clearly lost in both cases, some people are arguing they’re in fact in better shape politically going forward.

CHARLES LANE: You know who should be happy about this? Republicans?

KATHLEEN PARKER: A gift to the GOP. Both of these things. Take the pressure off.

NEWT GINGRICH: The Obamacare decision was probably a great boon to Republicans.

PEGGY NOONAN: We know where public opinion is and where it is going. So are Republicans going to go off chasing a rabbit they’ll never be able to catch?

RUSH: What do you think the meaning of all that is? We’re told we won! How did we win? How do we win? “Because we’ve lost another couple of issues, but they’re ‘taken off the table.’ We don’t have to embarrass ourselves fighting for ’em anymore, so we’ve won.” Don’t you like that? We’re in the midst of losing big time and here come these learned analysts telling us, “No, no, no! You’re winning.” How are we winning? “Because you’re not gonna embarrass yourself anymore trying to go after issues that nobody likes. “

That’s what we’re supposed to believe.

Pardon me, but I opt out of that.


RUSH: I know, folks, it was Peggy Noonan in this sound bite that I played who said, “We know where public opinion is and where it is going. So are Republicans going to go off chasing a rabbit they’ll never be able to catch?” She was talking about gay marriage there because everybody knows polling on health care… There’s never been a majority in favor of Obamacare; there isn’t now. By the way, Paul Ryan.. I better get to this other stuff out there. Paul Ryan is out there saying that Obamacare is gonna collapse of its own weight or some such thing.

It’s gonna implode on itself ’cause it cannot possibly sustain itself, but Peggy Noonan’s quote from what… These people, it’s the same old thing. You got a controversial issue. “Oh, no! We’ll only lose! Just thank God for the court taking it off the table. We don’t have to argue.” These are all Republicans who think social issues are killing them. But what it represents, folks, is a lack of motivation to fight for what they believe in, if they believe it. That’s all these quotes really mean. “It’s a gift to the Republican Party. Now the issues are gone! You don’t have to embarrass me anymore by having idiots in our party make cases out of these issues.”


RUSH: Let me give you another example before we move on to the other news of the day out there. I put the other news of the day in a Stack where I can find… Yes! It’s an example about how the court is purely political, and particularly the four justices on the left. And, by the way, look, I probably shouldn’t say this, which (chuckling) is the recipe why I say it. Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, these are the four justices. The first two are political appointments. I mean, they are there for the assured liberal vote.

The left engages in litmus tests when they come up to nominating judges and they only care about one thing: “Is this person a reliable vote on our politics?” That’s it. Now, they will mask that and disguise that during confirmation hearings and all that, and they’ll go through the motions of making it look like the jurist is eminently qualified, has the perfect judicial temperament (and all that rotgut). But the bottom line is you’ve got these four — Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan — and they are rubber stamps of the Democrat Party agenda.

Kennedy, it is thought, can be made into one with a puff piece profile in either the New York Times or Washington Post a couple/three weeks prior to a decision. That’s what they think in the media. I don’t care if it’s true or not. That’s what the media thinks, and therefore that’s how they act. I’ll give you another example, a perfect example of how political these judges on the Supreme Court are. Remember the DOMA case, the Defense of Marriage Act? That was titled, “US v. Windsor.”

It was just two years ago. I doubt that people remember this, which is why I, El Rushbo, am going to remind you. The very same five justices — Kennedy (who, again, wrote the opinion), joined by Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. All the same people, the same group of five, wrote that, quote, “Regulation of domestic relations, including marriage, is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states,” close quote.

So, when the left’s agenda is to invalidate a federal law protecting marriage, these five say, “You can’t do that! It’s a state issue.” Remember, they ruled DOMA unconstitutional. They struck it. DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was the way supporters of traditional marriage — and I resent that we have to put “traditional” in front of the word in order to have people know what we’re talking about. Marriage used to be marriage. Just like water is water, and just like paper’s paper. Marriage was what it is.

But now we have traditional marriage, heterosexual marriage, gay marriage. It needs all these qualifiers because it’s been obliterated. Anyway, DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, was a way that the forces for traditional marriage sought to defend it. So the Feds came along and Democrats came along; they want to obliterate it. They wanted to tear down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. Obama hated it, by the way. A bunch of leftists hated it.

In fact, even before this happened, if you’ll recall, Obama, with great fanfare, announced that his Regime was going to stop defending it in court. The United States Department of Justice was no longer even going to defend DOMA cases. So when the left wanted to get rid of — when they wanted to invalidate — a federal law that protected marriage, these same five judges unified and said that the law was invalid because marriage “has always been a virtually exclusive province of the states.”

Now when the left’s agenda is to invalidate state laws protecting marriage which two years ago they said are exclusively the province of the state, the same five say, “You can’t do that! This is a federal issue.” That, my friends, is not law. The law answers that question one way or the other, but not both. Only in politics can you take completely inconsistent positions if that’s what it takes to promote your agenda.

So the route to gay marriage first required getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. The same five judges came along and claimed that it was unconstitutional because marriage is exclusively the province of the states, and there was never any legitimacy to the Defense of Marriage Act, and they struck it down. That was Act One. Here comes the gay marriage case, and they strike down their own reasoning from two years ago. Two years ago they say, “Marriage? The states virtually control it!”

Friday they said, “The states have nothing to do with it; we do. And we find that marriage can be any two people seeking happiness. In fact, love. Oh, yes!” Kennedy actually wrote that love’s a right or some such thing close to it. Now, that’s politics is how that happens. That’s not the law. I mean, if the states… If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of law, says that the states are the exclusive province of marriage, and then two years come along and forget they said that and take over the whole concept of marriage for the purposes of redefining it, that’s not the law, folks.

And it’s silly to analyze it as law.

That’s another mistake some of our wizards of smart make. We have a lot of smart people, and they really like being smart, and they really like showing how smart they are. As such, they easily are taken off track because they don’t like to intermingle the two, law and political. They want to remain pure. Doesn’t matter. The left already did that long ago. So the left is now claiming essentially with this decision that their politics has become law. And of course, by the same token, ours isn’t law. Ours is criminal.

The same bunch of people are trying to criminalize conservative policy and belief. And that’s been going on awhile, too. The law is supposed to be principled. The law is supposed to be consistent. But politics is not. Politics is rough and ready and it doesn’t have to be principled at all. We want it to be. We wish it was. But it doesn’t have to be. The law is an entirely different thing, and it’s in the process (like everything the left touches) of being totally corrupted.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This