RUSH: I want to go back and repeat something from the first hour just to make sure that everybody has a chance to understand this because of the way the media is dealing with the vote today. It's already happened in the Supreme Court. It happened this morning, and what happened today is not any different than what has happened for 222 years of the US Supreme Court.
Now, there's an AP story: "Justices Meet Friday to Vote on Health Care Case." And listen to the way the story starts. "While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend." Well, doesn't that stand to reason? They're the ones voting. What is this unfair they know but we don't? They will know the outcome by the time they go home, unlike the rest of us. Well, duh! That's the way it is on every case. This is the AP, Mark Sherman. Mark, it may be news to you, but the court always knows how they've voted before we do. In fact, I can't think of a time where the court didn't know how it voted. Do you?
Can you even intellectually understand the concept of the court not knowing how it voted until June? "Mr. Limbaugh, it's entirely understandable, if the votes are secret and the justices do not know how the others vote, then they have to wait --" No, because they see every opinion, Mr. New Castrati, and they react to those opinions, the majority opinion is written, the dissent opinion is written, and they go back and forth, the opinions are assigned. I sometimes marvel at the sheer idiocy. I'm not trying to be offensive when I say this, but I'm just trying to be descriptive. How in the world is it unfair? This is like saying the two baseball teams know the outcome of the game before you do, the fans. Or they know the lineups before you do. It's just silly.
"After months of anticipation, thousands of pages of briefs and more than six hours of arguments, the justices will vote on the fate of President Barack Obama's health care."
No, they're gonna vote on the fate of the country. They're not voting on the fate of Obama's bill. They're voting on the fate of the country. "They will meet in a wood-paneled conference room on the court's main floor. No one else will be present." I tell you, it is hilarious and pathetic how the media are all aflutter about how the court is gonna vote on Obamacare today and not announce it until June. It just isn't fair that they know for so long before we know. And then the rest of the story is essentially the AP begging a clerk to leak the result to them, which I don't think has ever happened. I don't think a leak has ever come out of that place. I can't think of one. The news media are always the last to know when it comes to the Supreme Court, and they can't stand it.
"No one will know precisely when decisions on particular cases will be coming, until perhaps Roberts ends a court session in late June by announcing the next meeting will be the last until October. Then it's a safe bet that whatever hasn't been decided will be on the last day. ... Supreme Court opinions rarely find their way to the public before they are read in the marble courtroom, although the court inadvertently posted opinions and orders on its website about a half hour too soon in December." Oh, please do it again, they're asking. They're asking for somebody, please do it again. Please tell us.
"The last apparent security breach occurred more than 30 years ago when Tim O'Brien, then a reporter for ABC News, informed viewers that the court planned to issue a particular opinion the following day. Chief Justice Warren Burger accused an employee in the printing shop of tipping O'Brien and had the employee transferred to a different job." So it did happen once, I guess. So here and in all the other breathless reports from our media watchdogs being subtly suggested how unfair it is that the justices know and we don't. And what happened. There's nine justices in the room, and that's it. There are no note takers. There's no clerk. There are no secretaries. Just the nine justices. There are no arguments. They don't try to persuade each other. They vote. Opinions are assigned. The vote can change. Whatever the vote today is not necessarily the final one. Often is. Doesn't have to be.
Notes are taken by Justice Kagan. She's the newest justice. Somebody wants coffee, she goes and gets it. That's the rule. It's not 'cause she's a woman. It's 'cause she's the newest justice. You wait. Some feminist group is gonna learn that Kagan has to go get the coffee and they're gonna raise hell over the sexist attitudes of the court and somebody's gonna have tell 'em, "No, no, no, Scalia once had to do it, too. The most junior justice does all this." "Oh. Really? Well, it should stop when it's a woman, then. In this day and age, how demeaning to send a Supreme Court justice that's a woman out to get coffee for a man." I wouldn't be surprised if they raise hell about it if they find out that happened.