RUSH: So, once again we see which side Obama comes down on in the question of whether this is a country of the rule of law or the rule of man. With Obama, it's not the rule of law. He is implementing law that the Congress defeated, as in the legalization of the amnesty for 800,000 young illegals. Congress defeated that, the DREAM Act. He said, to hell with it, I'm gonna make it the law, just gonna do it. Obama wants the enforcement of every federal law to hinge upon whether he agrees with it or not. And if he doesn't agree with the federal law, he's not gonna enforce it, like the Defense of Marriage Act. It's the law of the land. The regime announced within the past year that they were no longer going to enforce it. It's a dictator's wet dream to do what Obama is doing. If he doesn't agree with the law, voila, it's no longer enforced. It may as well not even exist. That's who he is, folks.
Now, before the ruling on Arizona immigration came down this morning from the Supreme Court, I'd assembled here as part of the show prep Stack of Stuff a number of stories about the impending decision on health care. And it is amazing how fatalistic the left is on this. They are convinced they're going to lose it. That was before Arizona came down. I suspect we might have different "opinionator" pieces later this afternoon, tomorrow, and into tomorrow. But, for example, here at The Politico: "A Hugely Consequential Week." It's all about Obama, though. Don't forget. It's all about Obama.
The Politico headline: "A Hugely Consequential Week." This week is about who and what we are as a country. I saw the other day Politico's losing readership. It doesn't surprise me. You want consequential? Let me give you consequential. Try asking these questions. What will the commerce clause mean after this week? Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law, and if we don't, to be subjected to fines and imprisonment? That's pretty consequential to me. If the federal government will be granted that power. And, by the way, I don't say this jocularly.
If we have laws on the books that the federal government's not gonna enforce regarding immigration, why should election law be enforced? No, no, no, seriously. We've got precedent, folks, from this administration. We have it. DOMA, immigration law, any number of other instances. What if Obama decides that the 22nd Amendment's no longer relevant, limiting presidents to two terms? What if he just decides it's not relevant anymore, that that's part of this antiquated constitution, doesn't take into account the will of the people. Well, I think it's worth throwing out. You might say, "Come on, Rush, there's no way Obama would ever dispense with elections."
Yeah, there's no way Obama would ever not enforce immigration law. There's no way Obama would ignore the Constitution and just write a health care law that basically pees all over it. No way, Obama wouldn't do any of that, Democrat Party, no, they respect the rule, they wouldn't do anything like that. No, of course they wouldn't. Why should civil rights laws be enforced? Once you start cherry-picking these things and once the laws you enforce or don't enforce strictly because whether you like 'em or not, what if we started obeying laws on that basis or not? If the president of the United States can choose to enforce or not enforce law because he likes them or doesn't like them, what about us? What if we disagree with the speeding law? What if we disagree with the driving while drinking law? What if we disagree with the drug laws?
Mr. President, I don't like that law. I don't like the law that says I can't smoke all the marijuana I want. Screw you. Well, we know what would happen to us. We don't have the ability to choose which laws we obey or not, without consequence. He does. The only consequence for him is at the ballot box. It's the only consequence he faces. And that's once every four years. Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law? Will we have private health care in five years if Obamacare is upheld? Who will be the first American negatively affected by a death panel?
There was story last week out of the UK that's its been discovered -- shouldn't be a surprise -- that the health system, national health, whatever they call their health care system in Great Britain, 130,000 people are dying every year simply because they're not being treated. It's a form of euthanasia. They already have the death panels. It's the doctors. Cost control. Exactly right. They just determine, "That patient, no prayer, unplug 'em. Tell the family that we did everything we could." "Thank you, doctor." "Any time." One hundred and thirty thousand times, I think is what I read. What if we don't like paying income tax? 'Cause frankly I hate it. What if I just decide, screw it? Well, what happens is they come after me 'til they get me. I'll be sitting next to Wesley Snipes, wherever he is, with Nicholas Cage due in soon. Well, it's what's happening.
"Top Doctor's Chilling Claim: The NHS Kills Off 130,000 Elderly Patients Every Year."
I'd like the freedom to be able to ignore the laws I disagree with, 'cause there's some really dumb ones out there. There's some really, really stupid laws out there. But of course we don't have that ability. So it's a hugely consequential week for Obama, says The Politico. (Raspberry) to that. It's a hugely consequential week to America, is what we're facing.
The New York Times has a story here: "Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law's Legal Risks." Peter Baker, came out on Saturday. "Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law's Legal Risks." Just one of at least a dozen articles in the mainstream press over the weekend that are second-guessing Obama's legal strategy in defending Obamacare if it loses. And this piece from the Times is in their second-column lead, which, even The Politico notes is unusual for a nonbreaking story. This is all anticipating losing health care. Oh, no, what's Obama gonna do? Oh, no what are Obama's supporters gonna do? Oh, no, Obama's supporters are slow to grasp the legal risks.
In a nutshell, the New York Times is claiming that nobody ever questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare because it's so constitutional, even Pelosi sees it as Constitution. Now, what the Times is doing in their story from Saturday, they're pushing the Kardashian regime talking point, and the only problem is that nobody imagined how activist the conservatives on the court would be. That's right, when they were sitting down to write Obamacare, they never thought about whether or not it was constitutional. They arrived at that late after oral argument 'cause they didn't think that the right wing had gone that nutcase, until they heard oral arguments. And now, according to the New York Times, Obama's supporters are not prepared, 'cause they knew their law was constitutional. Now we're gonna have a bunch of fruitcakes on the right that might say it isn't. And poor old Obama and his supporters aren't ready for this. So, as I say, numerous articles like this, where they are wringing their hands.
Audio sound bite. Grab number seven. It's Jan Crawford, the former Jan Crawford Greenburg (as you might know her). She's at CBS News. She was on CBS This Morning. She had a report about the possibility the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare. Charlie Rose said, "Jan (panting), if the Supreme Court does say it's unconstitutional in part or whole, who are the winners and the losers?"
CRAWFORD: No one really agrees. There are a lot of people who say, and I mean Republicans who say this, that while it would be a humiliating defeat for the president -- his signature legislation; he's a constitutional law scholar -- if the court repudiated this law that he staked his first term on, it also wouldn't be so great for Mitt Romney either. Remember, Romney has campaigned against this law. He's saying that he's the only thing that stands between Americans and socialized medicine. So not really a clear call on who this would benefit.
What about the American people?
If Romney has said he's the only guy that stands between Americans and socialized medicine and the law's struck down, how is that not a win for Romney? Because it is socialized medicine! And what good is Obama being "a constitutional law scholar" when he cherry-picks it? He's a constitutional law scholar who taught people how to get around it! That's what he's good at. (impression) "Thaaaat's right. All you gotta do is be elected and then pick and choose what you like. It's easy!" That's all you gotta do.
Obamacare loss bad for Romney? "Oh, it's bad for everybody!" No, it's not bad. It would be a day of celebration. You know we had a call on Friday. We had a call here. Who was it? Boehner on Thursday said they were not gonna spike the football if they won. I said we can do that if he want, but I encourage people to celebrate. We don't get to celebrate liberty much anymore. I said go for it. And there were stories over the weekend about how out of touch I am. That was not good for me to say that. That was tantamount to throwing raw meat to a bunch of be savages.
I kid you not.
"Limbaugh Ginning up Fears!" or whatever the hell it was. Constitutional law scholar? Give me a break! Can these people really be this stupid? Ignorant, I mean. Are they really this uninformed? I guess so. Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico was on Meet the Press on Sunday. They were having a discussion about the possibility the court overturning the health care reform law. Liberals are paranoid, folks. That was before this morning. They're paranoid. They're going off oral arguments. They're paranoid. Here's what Richardson said...
RICHARDSON: I think it's a huge defeat if the Supreme Court moves forward to strike any part down, even just the individual mandate, for the American people. Just this week several million kids got their health insurance. I think there's gonna be a -- a real uproar against a politicized Supreme Court. You know, here they're making political decisions. This is a clear constitutional issue. The interstate commerce clause or the Congress dictates that this can happen. It's gonna energize the Democratic base, and that is important.
RUSH: I'll tell you what's gonna energize the base. The Supreme Court decision today is what's gonna energize the base. This Supreme Court decision this morning is gonna guarantee even more Republican turnout in November. You wait! What do you mean, "politicized court," governor? The political class has turned every controversial decision over to the Supreme Court! They don't want the final result in their lap. This is exactly... Folks, it's exactly what I told you they would say: A bunch of Republicans on the court are taking your health care away.
Look, he just said it. "Just this week several million kids got their health insurance." Just this week! O'Lordy! Just this week, just this week, several kids got care! You see 'em there playing in the dust, eating in the dirt? They're so poor, these scrounging lizards (sobbing), and just this week they got their health care. And here comes the Supreme Court to strip it away!
That's exactly what they're gonna do, and it's gonna energize the Democrat base. Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times was on Fox News Sunday. Question: "Let's run through various scenarios. You give me your take on what if this, then that. How does it play if the court strikes down the whole law, Jeff?"
ZELENY: If the court strikes down the whole law, there's no question that this is an immediate -- eh, at least a short-term -- hit for President Obama, and probably a pretty serious one. He had a Democratic House and Senate, and he... It was, uh, supposed to be a central achievement, and it failed.
RUSH: So no matter what spin you hear, it all ends up on how it's gonna affect Obama.
That's all that matters to 'em.