RUSH: Here's Peter in Manassas, Virginia, a retired lawyer. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Good to talk to you, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I think that guy from Baltimore's got it wrong. And so do lots of the pundits who are saying, "Well, at least the Commerce Clause can't be used to expand government." But this opinion by Roberts doesn't do that at all.
RUSH: Why do so many people think that it does?
CALLER: Well, because they want to find something good about it. And so they're trying to just take these words, and people won't doubt that these words are in the opinion, but the words are unnecessary for the opinion. And that's why it's called "dicta." And that means it cannot be used as precedent on --
RUSH: So this is what Justice Ginsburg was mad about. She wrote a dissent on the winning side. She was upset that Roberts even mentioned commerce?
CALLER: Yeah. But I think she began to realize that it was unnecessary. And I don't think they want to bring too much attention to everybody because then there's nothing in this decision that's good for either side. That is, at least it's not good for the conservatives because it is dicta, and you could read the opinion leaving that part completely out. And it doesn't change Roberts' logic at all.
RUSH: That's an excellent point, excellent point.
CALLER: And that means the next time they want to expand the government authority and using the Commerce Clause, nothing's to stop them from it, because when a case is brought to the Supreme Court, they can't really get away with using, oh, but Roberts said, it can't be done. We can't uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Well, he didn't need to say it in order to come to his ruling.
CALLER: So it's like for naught.
RUSH: Dicta is not precedent, so nothing he said about commerce will have any legal bearing in the future, right?
RUSH: Okay. So all these smart legal beagles who are patting themselves on the back are missing that point, it seems.
CALLER: It seems to be that is the case. You know, there are plenty of smart people out there. And Mr. Krauthammer, he said that this was a little straddling and nuance that Roberts did in order to... I really don't understand what he was saying, but it's not good in any way you look at it.
RUSH: What he was saying was that Roberts performed a little sleight of hand.
CALLER: Well, he tried to.
RUSH: And found a way to accomplish everything that he wanted to accomplish. Krauthammer said he would not have ruled this way, by the way.
CALLER: Yeah, he did, and I respect that. But why should the chief justice use a sleight of hand? Why shouldn't he just use ordinary English and logic to come to a conclusion?
RUSH: Exactly my question. Well, obviously, he's quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes in the New York Times saying, "If you can save the act, you've got to save the act."
CALLER: You know, I have a prediction about this opinion. It will not be a famous opinion like Marbury v. Madison. After this all shakes down and we get Obamacare repealed, this decision will just wilt away. And it will not be important for anybody. And Roberts will be seen eventually as a person who pandered to public opinion, instead of doing the tough job of ruling on the facts and the law.
RUSH: Well, you may have a point. Let me ask you a question, Peter. Do you like iced tea?
CALLER: Do I like iced tea? Yes, unsweetened iced tea because I shouldn't have the sugar that's in sweetened tea.
RUSH: Well, I'm gonna tell you. We're coming up here on the Fourth of July, and the Boston Tea Party and all that, and I've got this little tea company, Two if by Tea. One if I land, two if by tea. And we just came out with a brand new unsweetened version of our tea. And I want to send you a couple cases of it because you've helped everybody feel better. This is stripped tea. There's nothing in it but the tea. I want you to hang on, Peter, so Mr. Snerdley can get an address to send this to you, because you've made everybody feel better today with your call. And I really appreciate it. So don't hang up.
RUSH: Say, folks, I want to apologize a little bit. I have not intended to be a downer, but I decided today when I started the program that I was just gonna be as honest as I could be in trying to describe what I thought about this, not just how I felt about it. I normally ascribe feelings to a secondary status. I have not meant to be a downer. I think this is going to end up making everybody angrier. This is going to gin up turnout against Obama like nothing else has. I'm confident it's all going to work out. It just, for the sake of the people of this country, this thing bothers me. I want to try to explain why today.
I have not lost my optimism, enthusiasm for the country, but I just wanted to strip it all away here and just be as honest as I could about it today. Our last caller, Peter from Manassas, Virginia, said dicta is just the judges editorializing. That was not germane to the ruling or the case. Therefore, there is no precedent here on the Commerce Clause, and all of these pundits who are writing about this great victory, there isn't any in this. There's no victory here. We didn't win anything, is the point.