RUSH: It appears, ladies and gentlemen, the regime is just going to ignore the judge's ruling. We go now to... Who is this? Jean Cummings, a managing editor of The Politico. She was asked, "What's the administration gonna do?"
CUMMINGS: I think the administration is just going to move forward and hope for the best and hope that they get the ruling that they argue they deserve. Clearly this judge in Florida went further than anyone else did, and basically put the entire issue of the law now before the Supreme Court once the case gets there. But the Supreme Court would have had the ability to review the whole law anyway. So whether these negative rulings are narrow or broad doesn't really change the process that this issue is on, and that is resolution in the Supreme Court.
RUSH: Right. Well, but it does. See this is the key, and this is where, as I mentioned earlier, any one of the 26 attorney generals who have filed suit can move now and ask for an immediate ruling from Judge Vinson. The minute the signal is made that the regime is gonna ignore his ruling, somebody needs to consult him again, and that's what this sounds like. Well, you know, they're just gonna keep going 'cause everybody knows it's gonna go to the Supreme Court anyway. So we'll just wait until he gets there. In the meantime, they're just gonna move forward. They're just going to move forward on all of this. It doesn't surprise me. Frankly, it's what I expected from them. This is an increasingly lawless administration anyway. Ignoring the judiciary. I just want you to think back again: What would happen if Nixon had done this during Watergate.
"What are you gonna do? The judge has ruled."
Nixon says, "I'm not gonna pay any attention to 'em. Screw 'em. We're just gonna keep going."
There could have nuclear blowoffs, explosions going off all over Washington, DC.
RUSH: We spent a lot of time in the previous hour explaining severability, lack of a severability clause. I'm certain, as I said, that the regime did not want to play around with any severability, particularly because of the mandate and the fundraising aspect that was crucial to having the mandate that 32 million people (well, everybody) buy insurance or at least pay a fine if they don't. Now, the judge said that he's not going to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law because it was not possible to do so given the structure of the law and how it all revolves around the mandate -- which it does, which was my point. It all resolves around the mandate. But there's plenty of arrogance to go along the part of the regime, too, in this.
Now, the judge said something else. He didn't write this but essentially he said: I'm not a legislator; I'm not gonna rewrite the law. So I just voided all of it.
Now, the left is out there saying he's an activist judge. If he were an activist judge, he would have rewritten it. That's what activist judges do. Activist judges take a law they don't like and rewrite it so that it will pass their version of constitutional muster. They'd put a tax increase or whatever in it. This guy said, look, this thing is flawed, it's unconstitutional, and I'm voiding it. The whole thing. Which takes us back to this sound bite, again, Jean Cummings at Politico. She was asked this afternoon on television: What will the regime do as a result of this ruling? (replaying of sound bite) Look... (sigh) These people, Ms. Cummings as an example, really, honestly, folks, they make this job very hard. Because what she just said is senseless.
What she just said is ignorant. I do not like talking this way about people. She's clueless. It is clear she hasn't the slightest idea what she's talking about. (interruption) I know people have told her that, but that's the point. You know, the people that she wants to hear certain things told her what she wanted to hear, and she went out and reported it. "I think the administration, they're just gonna move forward. They're gonna hope for the best and hope they get the rules that they argue they deserve." They deserve? Gee, they deserve to be able to act extra-constitutionally? "This judge in Florida went further than anyone else did," she said, "and basically put the entire issue of the law now before the Supreme Court, once the case gets there.
"But the Supreme Court would have had the ability to review the whole law anyway, so whether these negative rulings are narrow or broad doesn't really change the process that this issues on, and that is resolution in the Supreme Court." Negative ruling? This was a positive ruling. It reaffirmed the constitutional premise of individual liberty and limited federal power. It's a very positive ruling. You know what she's saying? "Essentially, the judge never ruled. Well, it doesn't matter what he said 'cause everybody know it's gonna go to the Supreme Court." How does everybody know that? It's gonna go to the Supreme Court 'cause of what this guy did! And tell me, if this case doesn't matter, why did the regime defend in this case?
They sent a lawyer to defend. They presented their case to Judge Vinson just as the opponents of Obamacare presented their case to Judge Vinson. So if the case doesn't matter, why did they even bother to show up and defend themselves in court on this case? Clearly it matters. It's very sad that this is the state of competence that we have in big time media. "Well, you know, they're just gonna move forward. They're gonna hope for the best, and hope to get the rules that they argue they deserve." Ms. Cummings, what...? The whole thing has just been thrown out. It's just been ruled unconstitutional. That means it stops; it has been voided.
Apparently what she's been told is the real news here is the regime's just gonna ignore this on the premise that it's gonna end up on the Supreme Court anyway. So we're just gonna keep implementing this until it gets there, and there are I must stress again (to the point of having to apologize and being redundant) there are people who think that the judge's ruling gave them permission to keep implementing under appeal. He didn't. So, as I said in the first hour, the next thing to happen is one of the attorney generals from these 26 states can go back to Judge Vinson and say, "The regime is ignoring your ruling. We need an injunction. We need something," and then the regime would have to go argue that. That would, of course, then make the point of what we are all up against.
RUSH: John Lewis has weighed in, ladies and gentlemen, on all this. This afternoon on television he was asked the following question: "The Supreme Court will probably decide it by a 5-4 ruling and the odds are that it could go against the administration. Doesn't this throw all of its planning into jeopardy?"
LEWIS: There have been two "jerges" rulings against a section of the law, and two "jerges" ruling in favor of the law. I'm sure the administration will appeal and we will wait for the decision of the United States Supreme Court, but I believe health care is a right and not a privilege. I think the president and the administration and the Democrats in the Congress did what was right to set us on a path to providing comprehensive health care for all of our citizens and we cannot go back. We've come too far.
RUSH: Come too far, in violating the Constitution. We've taken too many steps beyond where the Constitution says we can go to come back. We've been there and we've gone so far over the line where the Constitution says we shouldn't go that we shouldn't have to go back. I crossed that bridge once before. I don't want to have to walk back across that bridge. John Lewis on the Obamacare ruling. We've come too far to go back now.
Lemont, Illinois. James, you're next on the EIB.
CALLER: Once and for all we have to put to rest the idea that health insurance is anything like automobile insurance. Driving is a privilege. You must pass an eye test, a written test, a road test, and you must provide proof of financial responsibility. The Illinois law, when it first went into effect, you could post a bond. Now, nobody does that. They simply buy liability insurance.
CALLER: And liability insurance pays others, should you be judged liable in operating an automobile on a public road. My mom is 94. She doesn't drive. She doesn't have to buy automobile insurance.
CALLER: And you can buy lots of things from insurance companies. Annuities, stuff like that. Now, in a matter of the court decision, if the president goes ahead and starts enforcing the health insurance law, I believe he would be in contempt of court.
RUSH: No question about it.
CALLER: If that was a Supreme Court, a federal court decision, I think that it would be incumbent upon the US Marshals, which are the enforcement arm of the US courts, to arrest the president --
RUSH: Well --
CALLER: -- and hold him for contempt of court.
RUSH: I don't know about that. You know, those kinds of things involving presidents, I don't know. But it is clear, it is clear that this judge has voided the law and it appears the regime is just gonna say, screw it, we're gonna keep implementing. If they're not stopped, keep doing it, some AG is going to have to go back to Judge Vinson and --
CALLER: And get a contempt of court ruling.
RUSH: Yeah, or some other ruling. I don't know if it would be called contempt of court. Obama is already in contempt of the American people by just this whole health care bill in itself. He's already in contempt of the people.
RUSH: He's already doing things the American people don't want. Now he is defying, it appears, a federal judge. The rest of us can't do this.
CALLER: Well, if it's a federal judge, then the US Marshals may be after him.
RUSH: Well, do you really expect that? Do you really expect the federal marshals will be knocking on the Oval Office door?
CALLER: Maybe the American people should be expecting that.
RUSH: Well, that's a different thing. But I hear you. Don't misunderstand. These kinds of things are different with presidents, and for certain reasons. I know that the media would have loved to frog march Karl Rove out of the Oval Office. They would have loved to frog march Bush out of there over what he said were lies about Iraq and all that. I'm glad James called because that is an illustration of the seriousness of this. We have a certain percentage of people in the country who believe the federal government's all powerful, whatever they want to do they can do, and the judge says it doesn't matter. People do think that presidents are above the law. And we've had some presidents who think they are above the law, particularly if they are confused and think that they are on some moral crusade that supersedes the law. Anyway, James, I appreciate it.
RUSH: Bill in St. Matthews, South Carolina. I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: Hey, listen, I think people are missing the biggest thing. It's not health care that just got ruled on. Obama is basically backed himself into a game of Supreme Court roulette. When this goes before the Supreme Court, it's not about health care. This is about Obama. And listen, he can't afford to lose this. And because he can't afford to lose this, he will find a way not to go to the Supreme Court. Listen, Rush, if he loses on the Supreme Court, his presidency is over. So he has to circumvent this. I predict he'll get with the Republicans and come out and say they're gonna fix health care, and he cannot let this go to the Supreme Court.
RUSH: Well, wait a second. Two things. If the Republicans fall for that, I can't see it. Republicans bailing him out on -- number two, I'm not ready yet to accept the premise that his presidency is dead. There might be a devious part of Obama that would love the Supreme Court to rule against him. Gives him every opportunity to point out how the right wing and the enemies of the little people have taken over this country and how finally he is needed more than ever to make sure he gets his shot to appoint correct judges that are gonna recognize the needs of the downtrodden in this country, he's tried so far but this is what he's up against. He is already on record as calling them out at the State of the Union speech two years ago on the Citizens United ruling.
I think he would love nothing more than an occasion and an opportunity to rip these people a new one and blow that place up, and use himself almost as a martyr. We'll have to ask if Elena Kagan will have to recuse herself on any health care cases. She argued a bunch of them. You know, she was solicitor general for the regime for a time. I'll have to ask my legal beagles about that. I understand what you're saying. It is about Obama. If the Supreme Court says he is unconstitutional, I can see you thinking he can't tolerate that. That's a repudiation he doesn't want. This guy so dislikes the Constitution, that would just fit right in with his whole argument that it's outdated, needs drastic change and so forth and so on, but still an interesting point.