RUSH: You know, this is how -- I don't know, silly. It may not be silly. First blush, it seems silly to me. This is how silly it is. I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer tell me today, "Hey, Rush, don't worry about this Arizona business. If you're the Supreme Court and you're gonna strike down Obamacare, you'd go ahead and protect Obama in a previous ruling so that you save the court's image." The theory being that they gave Obama most of what he wanted on Arizona 'cause they're gonna skin him alive when it comes to health care. Who knows. There's no way of knowing. But people are grasping at straws out there because everybody's confused.
I felt so bad today -- by the way, hi, folks, El Rushbo here at the Limbaugh Institute. Great to have you. It's a full week of broadcast excellence: 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
I felt so badly for Shannon Bream, who was the Supreme Court steps reporter this morning. The ruling came out, and they're tossing it to her, and it's so confusing until you've had time to get into it, that it was impossible to dissect this. She gave it the best she had, and it was good, but I was just glad I wasn't her. To have to explain this thing the moment it's been released, 70-some-odd pages.
Here's where we are on this. This is essentially what happened. The Supreme Court struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, this is where it gets confusing because they broke this thing down into four provisions. However, all eight of the justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect. It was unanimous, eight to zip. What's-her-face, Kagan, recused herself from this case. And that's what everybody thinks this case was about. Most people don't know about these other three provisions.
Most people think that the Arizona immigration case was about whether or not the cops can stop somebody and demand that they prove their status, and the court upheld that. Now, the other three provisions are not insignificant. It can be said that the regime won three out of four. And this one, this fourth provision, hangs by a thread because the court said that even though we're gonna allow the cops to stop people, do whatever they want to do -- this is the stop-and-the-check documents provision -- they upheld it for now, but they, in the ruling, invited litigation on that provision down the road if some kind of perceived violations take place.
So it could end up that this is gonna be challenged, and it'll be lost. Can you imagine if the states were not free to stop people and ask if they're here illegally? That could end up being the case because the fourth provision that was upheld, the thing everybody thought this case was about, the court invited litigation on it. So I don't know, folks. It's getting to the point here where you could say -- and we had Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals on these three provisions, and it basically wipes out states, just gives the federal government total purview over pretty much everything.
Now, as I said, Arizona's requirement for police officers to make reasonable efforts to determine the immigration status of people detained for other infractions was upheld, and this was the most reported on and discussed provision of the law. Most of the hysteria on the left regarding Arizona's law was directed at this provision, and that's what everybody really thought this law was about. Arizona's law stipulates that in order to for its provisions to apply, a law enforcement officer must first make a lawful stop, a lawful detention, a lawful arrest in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city, town or -- so basically the state of Arizona can stop people and demand that they prove their immigration status or their immigrant status, but that is subject to further legislation.
The court upheld, for now, the provision allowing local cops to check status. They upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained. Ice cream parlors are not de facto detention centers for illegals, so the president lost on that point. Snerdley: "What are you talking about, ice cream parlors?" Well, April 28, 2010, in Ottumwa, Iowa, Indian Hills Community College, Obama had a town meeting and he got this question. "I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish this country."
OBAMA: This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can imagine if you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go.
RUSH: So the court upheld for now the provision allowing local cops to check status, upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained. And ice cream parlors are not now de facto detention centers. So Obama lost the ice cream parlor provision. Look, even the wise Latina herself, Sonia Sotomayor, voted to uphold stop-and-check. All morning long when they came out with four provisions in the ruling, I was asking myself, how many people even knew that there were three other provisions besides this one? The only provision anybody ever talked about was the one that was upheld. Now, the attorney general of Arizona, and, by the way, Governor Brewer, she's released a statement calling it a big win, which you would expect. On CNN this morning, John King talked to the Attorney General Tom Horne, and his thoughts on the matter are thus.
HORNE: You can always have an applied challenge later on. But I think it's a big win because this was the big issue, which is the requirement that a police officer who legally stops or arrests someone and has reasonable suspicion the person is here illegally must check with ICE. He doesn't have discretion; he must check. I've been predicting we would win that one. The other three, there was very little discussion at oral arguments over, so it was kind of hard to predict. But the other three, I think, are minor compared to the big controversial issue, which was the requirement that police officers who lawfully stop or arrest someone and have reasonable suspicion the person is here illegally must check with ICE as to the status of that person.
RUSH: Right. And again, I don't mean to be redundant, but there's so much confusion I want to remind you that the court left open (wide open) the litigation aspects of that ruling. For example, the cops in Arizona could stop somebody this afternoon and that person could sue on the basis it was illegal or violated some right or whatever. It could be litigated. And, depending on how that goes, the fourth provision here could fall. Well, theoretically it could, but they vacated it back to the Ninth Circus, essentially.
They basically told the Ninth Circus, "It's your ball game here if this thing comes up again." That's where it would be litigated. And, yeah, it could end up at the Supreme Court, depending on what the Ninth Circus happens to do. It's all guesswork for now. For example, if Obama... Here's the way to understand it. If Obama... That's President Kardashian if you're under 25. If President Kardashian were arrested for driving without a license, say, in Kenya, would he object to them checking to see if he's a Kenyan citizen or not?
His grandparents were in Kenya before most people were in Kenya, just like people were in the ice cream parlors in Arizona before there was an Arizona. That's what he said in Ottumwa, Iowa. These people were in Arizona before there was an Arizona. And Obama, I am sure, has got relatives in Kenya before there was a Kenya. Now, the Supreme Court doesn't need to invite further lawsuits. The ACLU and La Raza would have sued over this anyway, but they did specifically mention it. Jeffrey Toobin, the ace legal analyst at CNN... By the way, did anybody...? I didn't.
I TiVo'd it. Well, I DVR'd it. I don't have TiVo. I DVR'd it, but I didn't watch it. Anybody watch the new HBO show called The Newsroom or something? (interruption) What did you think? (interruption) You didn't like it? Yeah, it's one of these introspective things. It's Aaron Sorkin, who wrote this thing. It's what he... I actually saw, in the voluminous things I read yesterday (I don't remember what it was, but it was Washington Post or some noteworthy place), a piece suggesting that this show is the model for what CNN needs to do to return to form. It said that Aaron Sorkin, in his brilliance, has written the script for CNN's return to relevance, if they just do what he wrote.
Now, this show on HBO is about a news anchor in a newsroom. And there's a formula now to go after Republicans. And that is like this anchor is a deranged lunatic at show open. He goes nuts. He's in a journalism seminar at some university (Northwestern, I think) and some student asks him about greatness of America. He says, "There's nothing great about America! America's not great anymore. We're not great anymore," and he launches into this diatribe. And it's the thing that refocuses his career. He'd just been a teleprompter reader up to that point, and that focuses his career.
It gives the executive producer (and ex-girlfriend, by the way) a chance to reformat the show using this guy's new-found expressiveness. And he is, of course, a Republican ticked off at his own party. That's how they do it. He's a moderate Republican ticked off at the extremism of his own party. So, anyway, I just had that fly off of the top of my head, since we got CNN bites here today. I think it's amazing. CNN is in such trouble that somebody really thinks that a fictional television show is the model for their return to glory. Anyway, Jeff Toobin, the ace legal beagle at CNN, was asked by John King this morning, "Well, what do you think here, Jeff? The Arizona attorney general says it's a big win upholding that fourth provision. What do you think, Jeff?"
TOOBIN: I think he's right [and] that this was what's known as a "facial challenge," which means the federal government asserted that these laws were unconstitutional in all circumstances. As you've been discussing, three of the four provisions were found to be unconstitutional; were found to be a violation of the federal government's prerogatives when it comes to immigration. However, the most controversial part of the law has been upheld. The so-called show-us-your-papers provision has been upheld. I think it is genuinely a mixed verdict.
RUSH: Even now, folks, people are trying to understand it and analyze it. It's gonna be later today or tomorrow before libs decide. Like the ACLU's got their statement out, but it's full of maybes and what-ifs. All the leftists are looking at this trying to figure out the best way to massage it for Obama. Not the country. As always, it's about Obama. So, we're not gonna get the full liberal take on this for a little while.
RUSH: I want to go back to this Obama sound bite from Ottumwa, Iowa. He was at Indian Hills Community College at a town hall meeting. And he got this question. "I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish our country." Now, that question obviously is loaded. The meaning of the question is that it was undocumented people who built this country. What about us, the undocumented? This country was built by people that are now being penalized, blah, blah, blah. And Obama gave this ice cream parlor example, and it's a classic illustration of deceit.
OBAMA: This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can imagine if you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go.
RUSH: Now, classic deceit, this ice cream parlor example. It was premeditated deceit. Police were never empowered to interrogate anybody about having their papers. The police can't go into an ice cream parlor and scout out the place and see some people that they might think are illegal and demand to see papers. That can only happen after an arrest or lawful detention, and an arrest on a legitimate violation, traffic violation or what have you. You're not violating a law eating ice cream at an ice cream parlor. So you had here Obama deliberately distorting this Arizona law to divide. It's painted the police as a bunch of sinister bigots.
But, you know, the political ramifications of this... I'm reading after the court decision was announced this morning. You can go to certain places, you can find establishment Republicans wringing their hands in frustration because they think any discussion of this is going to lose the Latino vote. I know the objective of politicians is to win elections. This is one of the problems we conservatives have with politics. We want to win elections. So should we pander, should we make it sound like we're for undocumented people being allowed to stay here, amnesty, all these things, just to win elections? Because that's what the Republican establishment essentially wants to happen. They're not saying it directly, but we've gotten to the point now where any public statement that's oriented toward upholding the rule of law is considered hurtful to Republican electoral chances. I don't know how you get around that. What are we supposed to do? Compromise on the law for the sake of winning elections?
Now, there are people in the Republican establishment that will tell you, "Yeah, it's exactly what we're supposed to do." Then we become no different than the left, pandering to this coalition with this message, that coalition with another message, a coalition over there with that interest group, what have you. You and I have always believed that standing for the rule of law... what bothers me is the assumption or the presumption that every Hispanic in this country, every Latino is for breaking the law. I just don't believe it. I just don't believe that's the case.
They're of the opinion that every Hispanic voter in this country is demanding that there be no law about illegal immigration, that any Hispanic person from anywhere in the world should be allowed to come here, and if you don't support that, I'm voting the other guys. Now, I could be dead wrong. Maybe all Hispanics are that way. But I just don't believe it. Well, I know I don't believe it because I know several Hispanics who every bit believe in the rule of law as much as I do. And they consider themselves Americans, not Hispanic or Latino or whatever. They consider themselves Americans.
Every issue the moderates, the consultants, the establishment say, "You better pipe down. You're gonna hurt Republican electoral chances. You're gonna hurt the Republican brand." Standing for the rule of law hurts your brand? Well, if that's true, then all's lost anyway. If standing for the rule of law is a penalty, then there's no reason for any law. Can't just cherry-pick which ones you want. So racial special interests were to pander to what their whims are, gender special interests, sexual orientation special interests, you name it. Ethnic special interests.
We either pander to everybody or pander to nobody. Equal pandering under the law. I don't know. If that's what we have to do to win, we've lost the country. I just don't believe we've lost the country. I think these are techniques or efforts to intimidate us into shutting up. 'Cause everybody wants to win elections. It's like the old saw: better not be critical of Obama. The independents, they don't like that. They're gonna consider you a racist. The last poll I looked at, Obama's losing independents in droves, big time.
RUSH: In his dissent, Antonin Scalia in the Arizona case, quote, "If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent." (repeats) "If securing its territory ... is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."