RUSH: All right, look, folks, it is huge, the judge ruling on health care, unconstitutional. The entire thing is unconstitutional. And contrary to what you're hearing in a number of places, the judge did not say, "Oh, by the way, go ahead and keep implementing this thing while you appeal it." The judge did not say that. It is not in his ruling. The whole thing has been declared unconstitutional and the Democrats don't have a response other than to attack the judge. "It's surpassingly curious and thoroughly odd," and unconventional and so forth. But who's really outta touch? We have a majority of states, 26 in the US who agree with Judge Vinson's ruling. According to polls, two-thirds of all Americans would agree with Judge Vinson's ruling and yet the White House and the State-Controlled Media call this ruling an outlier.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I'm gonna tell you everything you need to know about this, and as an added bonus, we are going to provide on the spot advice for how the Republicans ought to deal with this, and deal with this starting today. Now, the Republicans, God love 'em, it's like Kathryn says about our puppy, "She just doesn't know." The Republicans are now closing ranks with the Democrats on this Egypt business so that we can present a unified front. There are no calls for, "What happened here? Who is the Muslim Brotherhood and what's really going on? Where was the intel on this?" There is no strategery here to try to use this thing in Egypt as an albatross to hang around the administration's nose or neck as they would be doing to us.
But I'll get to all that in due course. Once again, telephone number, 800-282-2882. E-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
Do you remember last year, when a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the Constitution allows the federal government to force people to have health insurance, she said, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" As though she thought that was one of the stupidest questions that she's ever heard. Yeah, we're serious, we're damn serious. And a federal judge has just ruled the whole thing unconstitutional because of that, because of the commerce clause violation. The federal government cannot require that citizens buy something, nor can they require that citizens don't buy something. It works either way. And the regime, they knew full well, they had a chance to put a severability clause on this, and they chose not to. Now, the severability clause is basically if any part of this is found unconstitutional, the rest of it remains okay. The judge in his ruling said, (paraphrasing) "There is no severability clause. I'm finding the whole thing unconstitutional."
Now, a very salient thing that I wish to explain to you because I had a lot of questions about this in the e-mail and I am listening to a whole bunch of liberals try to massage this. The story is that the judge did "not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'" So Obama's staff is saying we are not going to comply with the federal court's ruling. Now, here's what ought to happen right now. By the way, there's another thing I want to tackle and that is this notion the left is also saying, "But there are two other judges and they haven't ruled this way." It doesn't matter. One federal judge has ruled the whole thing unconstitutional and the regime has to deal with that. They have to appeal it. They have to ask for a stay. What the other two judges -- doesn't matter. I'll explain in great detail in a moment. Here's what needs to happen. Deal with this legally. This got started in a Washington Times piece, the first thing somebody sent to me yesterday afternoon where it stated that the judge does not prohibit the implementation while the ruling is on appeal. He most certainly did not say that. I have read it. I have consulted legal beagles. My dad was a lawyer. I know this stuff now. And the judge did not say that.
So right now Obama's staff is saying we're not gonna comply with the federal court's ruling, which is not unprecedented. They did the same thing during the drilling moratorium in the Gulf. You had another judge there who said, "This ruling's unconstitutional." They said, screw it, we're just gonna keep the moratorium in place, and went out and got a bunch of people to make a statement about it and put their signatures to a lie about the dangers involved. So how should this be dealt with legally now? Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court's order. That is the legal option that any of the states, any of those attorney generals have in those 26 states. In fact, if I were an AG for a state, if I were an attorney general, I would take that news article with that quote, this is ABC: "Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'" I would take that ABC story and this passage and go back to court today with a draft contempt order, and I would ask the court to hold an immediate hearing to determine whether the Obama administration is going to comply with the rule or not.
This is not chump change. This is not insignificant. This is major. Think back to Watergate. Imagine if Nixon had defied the judiciary during Watergate. Can you imagine the hell that woulda broken loose? It's the same thing here. Folks, this is no different. This is no different whatsoever. Nixon, he abided by the judiciary's rulings back during Watergate. If he hadn't, we woulda had a constitutional crisis. In fact, some think we bordered on one very closely. And this could be, if the regime just thumbs its nose at the ruling here of Judge Vinson. The judge again has ruled the entire Obamacare void. The news media is failing to report this. Even some on our side are not getting this right. Now, as for the GOP, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, they need to continue to attack this statute. This is not a time to let up. This is not a time to say, "Whew, okay, the court's come out and made a ruling, we'll let them do the heavy lifting and we'll just back off so that we don't irritate the people." Wrong move. In fact, the Senate, Jim DeMint and the boys, they led all 47 in the Senate, voted to repeal this thing. This is time to put the pedal to the metal. They need to continue to attack this law, try to repeal it, try to defund it in case a higher court reverses course. It's always possible.
Look, folks, I'm not trying to throw cold water on anything, but we know that Clinton and Obama have appointed a tremendous number of left-leaning judges. We know how those judges rule in cases like Club Gitmo and terrorism and military tribunals and all of the left, all of the rest of this. So we gotta proceed here under the proper assumption that it's possible that a higher court will reverse Judge Vinson. There is no reason the Republicans should sit back. In fact, it's just the opposite. This ruling ought to light a fire under 'em. This ruling ought to inspire them. This ought to even give them more impetus to go after this law since they have a lower court ruling that supports their opposition on constitutional grounds. It's one thing to want to repeal this because the American people don't want it. It's one thing to repeal it in the context of democratic principles. It's another thing to have a federal court rule the whole thing unconstitutional. That's another arrow in the quiver. Hell, it's another bomb in the arsenal, and it needs to be used. But more than that, for the Republicans, the law would need to be repealed whether or not it is unconstitutional because it is a disaster. This cannot be forgotten. This is just a new front now to add from which we may attack this. Whether it was unconstitutional or not, if this judge's ruling had gone against us it would not have changed anything because this law is a disaster for the American people.
This law, Obamacare, destroys the American health care system, it destroys patient choice, it destroys -- well, significantly harms health care availability, and it destroys whatever is left of the nation's Treasury. That's where we are. This ruling should provide more impetus, more energy, and more ammo. It's a huge decision. It will be reviewed by an appellate court and it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. And the difference, folks, between winners and losers, losers would sit back on their laurels and say, "All right, court came out in our favor, we'll sit back and we'll just watch this thing traverse the courts." Winners make sure they get over the finish line. And they don't rest until they do. If the administration -- follow me on this -- if the regime goes to the appeals court with a request for a stay, they might get it, folks. The regime sends their solicitor general up there, "We need a stay of this ruling so we can figure out where we are." Well, they may get it. The appeals courts generally are more liberal now. Not only because of the Obama presidency, but because they blocked so many Bush nominees.
Now, I'm just prognosticating. I don't know how this is gonna happen. I'm just listing the possibilities here. This is serious. The left publicly is kind of laughing about it, "Yeah, it's an outlier." Behind closed doors they are scared. Behind closed doors this is the crumbling of everything they had in mind for this regime. This is the crumbling of every plan they have to socialize this country. Behind closed doors, they are plotting strategy every bit as they have for every other issue for as long as you and I have been alive. They are in panic mode. Dick Turban, majority member in the Senate, is holding a hearing on the constitutionality of the ruling. Now, all that shoulda happened before they passed it. But they're panicking over this. So if the administration goes to the appeals court with a stay request that's actually good for us, that's the point. The state of play legally right now is that a federal court has voided the law. It's unconstitutional, right now, immediately.
The administration thus has to go to the appeals court to stay that ruling in order to continue its implementation pending a final decision by a higher court. That's the point. They request a stay, they are acknowledging the judge's ruling. And then they have to make an argument for a stay. Now, if you are preparing to call this program and say to me, "Hey, blowhard, two other federal judges said it is constitutional." If you're wondering what I would say, should I get disrespectful phone calls like that, let me take a brief time-out and come out and explain in detail. For example, if a New Castrati gets through to Snerdley, "Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you sound so confident, you sound like you know it all, but we know that two other federal judges have said this law is constitutional. What about that?" Mr. New Castrati, it means nothing. Your two other rulings mean nothing. And I will explain why in mere moments.
RUSH: Here's the answer to the question that I knew I'd get and I still might get it from the New Castrati. "Well, we have two other federal judges who said that Obamacare is constitutional. What about that? What about that? What about that?" Here's the true answer. Don't doubt me. It means nothing. Here's why: If even one court rules that a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter that two courts haven't. This is pure logic, folks. If one court -- just one, this Judge Vinson -- rules that a law, any law, is unconstitutional, the regime does not have the ability to choose between court decisions. It can't say, "Well, I'm gonna ignore Judge Vinson. I'm gonna go back. We're gonna obey and deal with these other two."
They can't do that. The regime must comply with federal court rulings. Isn't that what the libs tell us, by the way? Those two decisions are of no consequence because they don't prevent the government from acting. We have a ruling here that in its scope supersedes those two. This decision voids Obamacare. This decision throws it out. This decision prevents the federal government from acting. This decision prevents the federal government from implementing the law. So, as a matter of legal recourse, the regime needs to get that resolved. It cannot say, "We don't care what the court says." It cannot say, "We're gonna rely on the decisions that we like."
So we all know where this is headed. It's gonna be up to the Supreme Court to sort out the divisions among the lower courts, which it will do when it eventually rules. In the meantime, the executive branch is not free to pick and choose or sort them out. It must comply with a decision striking down the law. The legal experts are guessing next year the case will be in the appeals court and SCOTUS will take it up in 2012. That's just people guessing as to the timeframe of this. My point is that the regime has to deal with the federal decision voiding its law. In the other cases, they didn't have to take any action. No action was needed because the courts didn't rule that way.
Courts just ruled on various aspects, but it did not prevent the regime from acting. This decision does. Now, the Republicans in the House and Senate must be ready for the Supreme Court to take an opposite position. I'm not saying they will, and I hope to God the court doesn't. But you have to assume that. It's like in golf, you have to assume the opponent's gonna make the putt. You just have to assume the other side is gonna perform to its max. You just have to assume that in preparing your strategery. The Republicans in the House and Senate, as a matter of strategy here, must be ready for the Supreme Court to overturn Judge Vinson. That's why, in the meantime, they must continue to pursue repeal of the whole law.
None of this, "Well, there are parts of it that we like." They got cover now: A judge has said the whole thing is unconstitutional, so ditch the whole thing, defund the whole thing. No deals, no negotiations. Kill it. Now, this is counterintuitive to certain Republican leaders that spent years and years up there making deals and looking for common ground, but this is not an occasion to look for common ground. This is an occasion to build upon a decision that rules the fundamental building block of Obama's reason to be president: Unconstitutional. Don't misread this and conclude that for PR and political reasons they'll do something weak or something else. It would be disastrous for them to the party and mostly the nation. A golden opportunity awaits!