RUSH: I continue to think about the Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court. You know, there's something about this that is genuinely troubling. We have nine members of the US Supreme Court. The media is focusing on five of them. Four of them are excused. Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded, and above and beyond question. And those are the four liberal justices. They are not expected to be open-minded. The media's not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview. But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy?
The media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined. So four justices are given a pass. The four liberal justices are considered, obviously, locked in stone (and properly so) and the pressure is being brought to bear on the other five. But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic? You would think that this wouldn't even be a question for all nine of them. "Coerced contracts" are against the law, much less the Constitution!
You cannot force anybody to sign a contract, which is essentially what Obamacare does when it mandates that you buy an insurance policy. Yet we have to rely on one or two justices to see this. That's precarious. That is a precarious balance in which freedom is on the scales. That's troubling to me. Not to mention the fact that one of these justices should have recused herself: Elena Kagan. She was solicitor general in the Obama administration. She argued cases before the Supreme Court. She was responsible for formulating the Obama regime's legal defense of Obamacare. That was her job. Now, if that isn't enough to disqualify somebody as a justice on a case, I don't know what is.
This should be -- in a sane, reasonable, responsible world -- an automatic recusal and she should do it on her own as a matter of honor and legal ethics. But there isn't any of this pressure brought to bear on her to speak of. And obviously left to her own devices she is not gonna recuse herself because at end of the day, that's precisely why she's there. That's why Obama nominated her. That's why she's on the Supreme Court. She is there for one purpose (well, one primary purpose) and that is to provide a vote for the constitutionality of Obamacare, and then to stay on the court and continue to write law, as a liberal.
But the primary reason she's nominated is to be a vote that Obama can count on here. As the solicitor general... The solicitor general, by the way, if you're new to the program, is the lawyer for the government who tries cases before the US Supreme Court. That's the government's lawyer. And, as such, her job was to formulate the Obama administration's legal defense of Obamacare. That's grounds for recusal right now. If she had any legal ethics she would have recused herself. There shouldn't need to be any pressure. That's why all the liberals are sure things. Lockstep. They were picked because they would be certain to vote the liberal way.
Not because of judicial temperament or any sort of legal brilliance. They were picked precisely to be a reliable liberal vote on the US Supreme Court. Now, some of you might be shouting at your radio, "Well, don't the Republicans do that?" Well, they may try, but they don't succeed. I count you a whole bunch of so-called conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court who become liberal over time. David Souter is one. But there are countless others. But you notice that the Republican-appointed justices are not "dependable." This is what I'm really getting at here. They're not dependable, so they have to be pressured by the media, which is working for the administration "to make them get this right."
But the four liberal judges?
Ah, don't even think about talking to them!
Don't even ask them to be open-minded.
Don't even ask them to consider the merits of the case.
They are there to vote for Obama, pure and simple. Or whoever the Democrat president is.