JASON: You’ve gotta understand the difference between majority rule and mob rule. That’s why Franklin supposedly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” There was actually a great controversy as to whether that went down. But regardless, it’s a good line. (chuckles) Think about Section 4, Article 1: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives has been prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

Article 2: “Each state shall appoint — in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct — the number of electors.” Now, what would happen, do you suppose, my friends, if H.R. 1, which seeks to federalize elections…? This is the federalizing of elections thanks to COVID. No deadlines, all mail-in, universal mail-ins, no voter ID.

It would ban voter ID, effectively. What would happen if the Supreme Court said, “Gang, we finally have to rule on this. Our back’s against the wall. We don’t like to do it. After all, we are the Roberts court. We don’t like to do it, but we finally gotta rule on this, and you can’t do this.” Why, the Democrats would then turn on the court.

The Democrats might even unleash the mob on the court the way Chucky Schumer did. The threats are going unabated. Literally we’ve got one party in America that thinks they can threaten their opponents, whether it’s false Russian conspiracies, whether it’s a corrupt intelligence bureaucracy and a corrupt DOJ, whether it’s going after people who trespass and call them insurrectionists while letting rioters run free.

We have the governor of Minnesota taking about “yet another black life taken,” when in fact we don’t know the circumstances. They’re doing it deliberately, and now they’re going after the court. But the problem is, they’ve got history not on their side, especially with this president, but the other side. It wasn’t that long ago we found out that Biden actually opposed undoing the filibuster. If you remember, audio 6, he didn’t like packing the Supreme Court either.

BIDEN: President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body — including the Congress, in my view, the most significant body — in this country, the Supreme Court of United States of America.

JASON: Now, that’s exactly right, showing that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. Biden was right, and he basically said the court is counter-majoritarian. The court is not supreme. Jefferson was right about judicial review. It has to be limited just like anything else. Congress can limit it by impeaching judges.

They can remove appellate jurisdiction. But nevertheless, the court’s independence is what’s being threatened. They are now doing to the court what they’ve been doing to cops — intimidating it — and that’s why Rush when he talked about the threat to the Supreme Court was, as usual, spot on.

RUSH: Let me read a headline to you. See how this affects you. Fox News headline: “Senate Democrats Deliver Stunning Warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or Face Restructuring.” Several high-profile Senate Democrats [threatened] the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to ‘heal’ the court in the near future.” Now, you’re probably saying, “What the hell is that about? What the hell did the Supreme Court do to tick these people off?”

Well, A, Clarence Thomas is there. Kavanaugh is there. Alito is there. There’s a bunch of conservatives on the court.

“The ominous and unusual [threats were] delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT),” that would be Hanoi Dick, Da Nang Dick, whatever, “Mazie Hirono,” the man-hater from Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and the pretty white girl, Kirsten Gillibrand (who looks to me like she just stepped out of a giant bag of flour), “referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.”

The brief that these Democrat senators filed said, “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” and they’re threatening! If the Supreme Court doesn’t stop this, if the Supreme Court doesn’t start ruling the way that the Democrat Party wants, then they’re going to maybe start engaging in packing the court again when they get the White House back. They are threatening to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court and have the next Democrat president load it up with Democrats to “fix” this if the court doesn’t change its ways.

Now, Congress established not the judiciary, but Congress set it up. The Constitution establishes the judiciary as a branch, but Congress decides what the districts are, how many there are, where the federal courts in these districts are. You’ve heard the First Circuit, the Second Circuit (well, the D.C. Circuit), the Ninth Circuit. Congress sets this up. Congress, if they have the votes legislatively, can change the makeup of the court system however they want.

This is not that. This is an out-and-out threat to the way various justices are deciding cases. And these Democrats are basically telling conservative justices: You guys, if you don’t stop this, if you don’t change the way you’re ruling — this is not what they’re saying but it’s essentially what they’re saying, the same thing as — then we’re going to get hold of this court next time a Democrat is in the White House, we’re going to expand this court to 12 seats or 15. And it’s going to be nothing but Democrats on it, new seats.

“Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination. … ‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it.'” All this is, folks, it’s actually in one sense a good sign. The Democrats are realizing that Donald Trump is going to get the next appointment. There will be probably a sixth conservative justice on the court before Trump leaves office. Minimum. And that totally takes a key weapon out of the Democrat arsenal.

Their insurance against losing elections has always been to control the judiciary. They put liberal activists on the courts as judges and they basically make law while ostensibly ruling on cases before them. And this is how they ensure themselves against losing elections. Well, they’re not going to lose the power to establish the culture and the law even if they don’t have the power of the White House and Congress behind them.

And since the court is decidedly now tilted to the right and looks like it could be even more tilted to the right before Trump leaves office, they are now attempting to intimidate. Nothing’s going to come of it. It’s just a threat. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next time a Democrat’s in the White House they do try to expand the court and pack it.

JASON: You know, President Trump did get the next appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, and think about where we would be on religious worship, on the First Amendment, on freedom of speech, on the Second Amendment (they’re going after that), on searches and seizures, thanks to the false Russian conspiracy hoax and what the FISA court — which I am voted against, by the way, in Congress. Proud to say that.

Where we would be without Barrett? We’ll talk a little bit about that coming up. But understand a little history here. The FDR attempt to pack the court worked. It was “the switch in time that saved nine.” This is what the Democrats want to do. They may not ever pack the court. I actually don’t think they will, but they are threatening the judges, just like they are threatening Breyer to step down.

The goal — just as in the New Deal era — was when they were striking down New Deal legislation because it was beyond, as it was, the enumerated powers of the Constitution… I think it was the Schechter meat-packing house, if I recall. It was the Schechter case, anyway.

When they struck those down, that’s when FDR threatened to pack the court to intimidate them. And, lo and behold, the next few decisions — Darby and few others, Wickard — why, it was the switch is time. West Coast Hotel Co. “The switch in time.” They acquiesced.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

JASON: The single biggest fire out of control is this assault on the republic — otherwise known as a filtered majority, otherwise known as three branches of government, otherwise known as checks and balances, otherwise known as limits on the state — and the court is next on in the crosshairs. It started with Chuck Schumer, the loudmouth from New York, who threatened the court, threatened Kavanaugh, threatened all of them.

CNN didn’t seem to catch that. They were busy… (laughing) They were busy going after the Covington High School kids. Oh, yeah, they got sued over that. These people, they lie with impunity. This is really the gaslighting we face today. This is why a media that is basically not a watchdog of government but a mouthpiece for government is so dangerous.

Where would the country be without Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments? Well, you wouldn’t have a whole lot of rights that right now we have that are in jeopardy. Audio cut number 8. Here’s Rush on the impact of Amy Coney Barrett.

RUSH: They can’t believe… They can’t believe that this court’s now 6-3 conservative. They can’t believe that Justice Roberts has been eliminated now as the power behind the court to fix things. It’s 6-3 conservatives now with Amy Coney Barrett. So their only reaction is they’re going to pack the court. They’re gonna get rid of her influence. They’re gonna negate her confirmation if they win the presidency by packing the court, minimum 13 justices on the Supreme Court. They won’t admit it, but they’ve been caught flat-footed saying it.

When asked about his plans to pack the Supreme Court, Biden said voters don’t deserve to know what his plans are. And that’s because Joe Biden believes that half of America’s voters are a bunch of chumps with microphones — bitter, clinging, deplorable chumps with microphones. “Who in their right mind could vote for these people?” is what I’ve been asking myself. Who in their right mind could vote for these people? It boggles the mind to me! Now, the Democrats are fit to be tied.

You have Dick Blumenthal from Connecticut who was threatening, I don’t know what, to Amy Coney Barrett, saying, “There will be consequences. There will be consequences when you break the rules. There will be consequences when you lie to us. There will be consequences.” I don’t know what he was talking about, but he was threatening her. Chris Coons, who was Biden’s replacement in Delaware, the senator, short little bald-headed guy, was on PMSNBC yesterday, told Rachel Maddow, “There should be a wide open conversation on rebalancing the courts, including the circuit and district courts where there are hundreds of judges -” ready for this? “- who should not be allowed to sit peaceably without our reexamining the process, the results, and the consequences.”

What does that mean? It means that little Chris Coons wants to pack the Supreme Court and the district courts in order to punish the Republicans for getting so many lower court nominees confirmed. And this guy is supposedly a moderate. Do you know, by the way, that there aren’t any openings on the circuit court, that Trump has filled them all? It is amazing. Trump has confirmed over 300 judges in toto, in three years. This has reshaped the American judiciary unlike it has ever been reshaped before.

And the Democrats know it, and they are fit to be tied. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court — her confirmation and her swearing in — is one of the greatest things that’s ever happened to the Supreme Court. It’s one of the greatest things ever happened to rule of law. It’s one of the greatest things ever happened to separation of powers.

And I’m gonna tell you, her speech last night, I believe — as much as anyone — was targeting the chief justice, who has been so far outside the bounds in his recent rulings, I think… We’ll never know, but I think she had him in mind. In fact, I think Nina Totenberg last night on Fredo Prime Time has the same fear. Fredo said, “What could a Judge Barrett mean to jurisprudence going forward?”

TOTENBERG: You’re about to look at a court that is more conservative than any court has been in 80 or 90 years, dating back to the 1930s. And what that means is that there’s going to be a 6-3 majority. It also means that Chief Justice Roberts — who is, I think it’s fair to say, painfully aware of the danger to the courts if the Supreme Court is viewed as just a partisan institution. If it means that he no longer has the kind of control he had in the last term when he was the fifth vote…

RUSH: Well, that’s exactly what it means, and here’s Victor Davis Hanson, with his take on that very assessment.

HANSON: I think it really diminishes the Hamlet “to be or not to be” role of Justice Roberts because he’s gonna be less relevant than he was in the past with the addition of Justice Barrett. It really tells the Republicans that they can make great appointments like Clarence Thomas and Justice Barrett, and they don’t have to highlight race, class, and gender, that these are incidental. They’re not essential. Merit is what counts.

RUSH: This is such an important point that I want to try to emphasize this, because what Victor Davis Hanson’s pointing out here is, Clarence Thomas a great judge, a great mind. It doesn’t matter that he’s black. It doesn’t matter where he grew up. It doesn’t matter he’s African-American. None of that matters. It means he’s a brilliant jurist.

Justice Barrett, same thing. She didn’t have to be chosen because of race or class or gender. To us — to us Republicans — those are incidental things. They are not defining things. The defining things about Thomas and Barrett are their minds and their personalities, their character and who they are, not their gender, not their race, not their sexual orientation or preference.

JASON: Well said, Rush, and what it really means as well — as the court is construed right now — is your First Amendment, your Second Amendment, your Fourth Amendment, your Fifth Amendment right to property, your right to a trial by jury are secure for now. Which is why the Democrats (laughing) feel so threatened. They don’t seem to support any of that.

Remember Justice Roberts himself said, “The best way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race.” That means preferences and quotas would not hold up in this court, no matter what your university says as they discriminate against Asian-Americans or United Airlines putting quotas for pilots. None of that passes muster right now, which is why the Democrats are hell-bent on changing and packing the court. Beware.