Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

How Did We Get to This Point?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To continue on one of the themes I opened the program with today about how these people are not that smart.  By the way, let me again be specific and clear.  I'm not insulting anybody.  I'm not. This is not an insult. I'm not calling anybody stupid.  My point is we live in a world where liberal elites are considered intellectually just head and shoulders above everybody, and even the intelligent elites of conservatism acknowledge that and go out of their way to try to impress these people.  It's one of the things that frustrates us, frankly, isn't it?  So many of our people, particularly in the Washington-New York corridor, say things and do things to impress people like Verrilli.  And Elena Kagan and Sotomayor and all the other high-falluting big time liberals.

This guy, Verrilli, has been made a fool of as a solicitor general.  I don't even know that he knows it, but people are laughing at him!  His own side wants to throw him overboard because of his performance yesterday.  Now, who is he?  Well, he was editor-in-chief of the Columbia University Law Review.  "How can he be incompetent," see?  "How can he be stupid?  Why, he was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review! He's gotta be smart."  Really?  Why?  What goes on at universities?  Education doesn't.  Indoctrination does.  That guy that called here about the test, the multiple-choice test and the four answers and the answer that won in the classroom was lack of access? That was the correct answer? That's the one that got you an A on the test? 

It's propaganda. 

This isn't any education that goes on.

There's no learning that happens in liberalism. 

Indoctrination and propagandizing is what happens. It's inculcation, not learning, not critical thinking.  I had people asking me, "Well, why didn't Elena Kagan, who helped...?" You know, she was the solicitor general for Obama before this guy.  She should be recused, or she should have recused herself.  She had no business sitting on this case as a justice.  A lot of people have asked me, "Well, why didn't she come to his rescue?"  Ginsburg did a couple times. Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to do come to Verrilli's rescue and make his argument for him.  Well, Kagan should have come to his rescue because Kagan wrote all of his arguments in the first place!

That was one of her jobs was to prepare the defense of this bill when she was solicitor general.  Yet she didn't say much.  I suspect the reason she didn't say much is because she ought not be there in the first place and doesn't want to call attention to herself in that regard. Maybe.  They may not even be that smart to realize that that would appear to be an ethical lapse.  Verrilli is married to a lawyer, by the way, on the Democrat staff of the House Financial Services Committee. It is very incestuous in that town.  So Verrilli had the same position at Columbia that Obama had at Harvard Law. He was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review. 

"Has to be smart." 

That's what that says. 

But by virtue of his performance, where is the intelligence? 

Now, folks, the Wall Street Journal today called yesterday "a constitutional awakening."  And at first glance you might say, "Yeah, yeah. Okay." Because what happened yesterday?  What happened yesterday was a bunch of people thought that this was a slam-dunk that it would be declared constitutional, including the mandate. And the court went the way it did during oral arguments and all of the "learned" people were shocked and stunned and couldn't believe it and sunk into immediate depression. The Wall Street Journal says: Well, we had a "constitutional awakening."  I would beg to differ.  The "constitutional awakening" is the Tea Party.  The Tea Party was the "constitutional awakening" in 2009 and 2010.

The Tea Party voting in the midterms in 2010, that's the "constitutional awakening."  The election was a "constitutional awakening."  The fact that we hang by a thread here in the Supreme Court is not a "constitutional awakening."  What this is... And this is my point of the whole show so far. This oral argument -- these hearings, whatever you want to call 'em -- is evidence of the deterioration of the rule of law in this country.  We are hanging by a thread! More than likely we're hanging by the vote of one man, one Supreme Court justice. I don't care if it's Kennedy or whoever. Just the fact that one person out of 311 million decides this? That's not a "constitutional awakening."  This is evidence of how far we have sunk if you ask me.  No, I'm still glad it happened. Don't misunderstand.  I'm just still in a state of shock that we have gotten here.  I'm still in a state of utter disbelief that we have arrived at this point. 

But we have, and we are here. 

So it must be dealt with accordingly.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: