RUSH: Now, I got a note from a friend of mine, former prosecutor in the Department of Justice. Over the weekend we were e-mailing back and forth, a bunch of us, just appalled at all of the so-called conservative intelligentsia. We're trying to find silver linings here, and some of the most peculiar things were being said in support of Justice Roberts' ruling. We were beside ourselves. We were asking ourselves, "What is so hard to see about reality here when it hits you between the eyes?"
And my buddy sends me this note. He said, "I wish I had more time to write this. I'm totally under it and I have to move on, but I'm reminded of when I was a prosecutor and we used to have the judge order the defendants that they were barred on pain of being held in contempt not to disclose sensitive discovery material to people not entitled to have it, such as the press or hit men, (laughing) people that might use it to kill witnesses. We prosecuted the mob, number of other things. I always used to laugh, Rush, I used to laugh when I had to seek those orders. It was office policy to do so at DOJ. The judge telling some guy that's murdered 15 people, 'Don't divulge what's gone on here in court?' Come on. People who commit mass murder, Mafia style extortion, big-time drug trafficking, those crimes knowing they were risking life prison sentences, you really think they're gonna be intimidated by and thus conform to a threat that they might be held in contempt by a judge? To think so is to be an egghead so into judicial majesty that you've lost touch with the real world."
Now, why do I bring this up? Well, let's put aside Levin's bulletproof argument that Justice Roberts' holding on interstate commerce is not the opinion of the court and is thus not binding, and it's not. I can't believe, even now, there are law professors writing that Roberts gave us this great, great ruling on the Commerce Clause. He didn't. He was writing for himself, as our caller said on Friday. It was dicta. It didn't even need to be in the opinion. He was not writing for the court on the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has not been shrunk. The Commerce Clause was not impacted by this. But the point of the e-mail, even if it was, it doesn't matter, 'cause the Democrats can just go back at it again, that's the point.
Let's pretend for argument's sake that George Will is right, and let's say that this Commerce Clause thing that Roberts said is binding precedent. So what? Roberts broke faith on Thursday. Regardless of what political agenda he thinks he was serving, he showed that, if necessary, he's totally willing to put aside the result the law compels in order to serve whatever agenda is important to him. There was plenty of binding law that as the dissent showed, compelled the conclusion that the mandate could not be a tax, and Roberts just ignored it. Even if you buy that his Commerce Clause reasoning is binding -- and it isn't -- what makes anybody think that this would make a difference to him if he believed in some future case that his political agenda was more important than the law?
Once you do this, you've done it, you've set a precedent, it's there. And once you've established that you'll ignore the Constitution and write something to fulfill your agenda, you've broken faith and you'll do it again, it doesn't matter what comes next. As long as in this case, in this instance, whatever the media wants done, if they think Roberts is the crucial vote, they're pretty confident they can get it now, just by threatening him with bad news coverage. Really. This is one of the reasons these people have life terms, to be immune from this kind of stuff. It's one reason they're not elected, is to be immune from this kind of pressure. I think Roberts was outvoted 8-1 on the Commerce Clause anyway, but once you break faith, you've shown that you can't be relied on to follow precedent. Therefore, what the hell difference does it make that you've created great precedent? You're not controlled by precedent. Once you've committed the greater sin of making the law subservient to your personal agenda, twisting the precedents to make them say whatever you want to, is not something you're gonna sweat over no more than a terrorist is gonna be stopped from leaking discovery material by something meaningless to him as a possible contempt citation.
So all these people who are thinking that we've got this magic Commerce Clause ruling here are whistling in the dark. 'Cause how did we get it? We didn't get it by way of lawsuit. We got it in dicta. I don't know. Maybe you pass a law that judges on the Supreme Court can't read newspapers, can't go on the Internet news sites, and can't go to cocktail parties. Not allowed to be interviewed by people from the New York Times or the Washington Post.
RUSH: Look, folks, as I said, I don't like being in this situation. All these people on our side who are finding all these silver linings out there, let me ask you a question. Do you know anybody, and did you hear or read anybody say, "I really hope we lose this at the Supreme Court so that it strengthens our position politically for the election."? Did anybody say that? There wasn't a single person hoping we lost this because it would strengthen our electoral position. Okay, so we lose it, and guess what? "Oh, man, look at the silver lining."
Now, I understand the idea of wanting to be positive and all that, but you gotta be realistic at the same time, and this is an utter disaster. It is just a crying shame what is happening to our country. The law, the Supreme Court, to try to find a silver lining in this is to put your head in the sand and not be able to face reality. We've got a monumental task ahead of us. And it is up to us. I'm not one of those people thinking, "That's the way it ought to be, in a democracy, Rush, that's the way." It ought not be this way. What it ought to be, the law should have been voted unconstitutional. That's what should have been. Not this. "Judge Roberts had it right, though. He's not gonna save us from the consequences of --" His duty is to uphold the Constitution.
We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are if all three branches were devoted to defending the Constitution as they swear under oath to do, we wouldn't be here. So now we are basically in a campaign for the survival of the United States of America as founded. I don't know of anybody who wanted and thought this would be a great position to be in after the ruling at the Supreme Court. The Constitution was written to protect us from government. The Constitution limits what government can do. That's been totally lost. We ought not be anywhere near where we are. One of the reasons the left is celebrating is because -- we've talked about it -- they view the Constitution with rage. They look at it, what they call a charter of negative liberties.
Now, the average person, upon hearing that, will be so confused that he or she won't even try to understand it. What in the world could be negative about liberty? What in the hell is a charter of negative liberties? What's that? Well, here's what it is. If you're a statist, if you're a dictator, if you're an authoritarian, the Constitution of the United States is your biggest enemy because all it does is tell you what you can't do. It limits you. It limits your power over your citizens, your subjects, your people. We can't have that. Barack Obama, all the rest in his legal circle, hate that the Constitution limits government. I'm gonna tell you something, folks, this ruling has just stood the Constitution on its head because now all of a sudden the government's been told what it can do for the first time, in a real sense. It's not really the first time, but this is so big, it may as well be.
The government has been told what it can do. There is nothing limiting about this decision. It is a decision that expands the government, limited only by the imagination of people in the government. The Constitution has been stood upside down, inside out, on its head. And that's why people who are devoted to government as the command-and-control authority in everybody's life are ecstatic and happy because the Constitution just had a big chunk of it written out. And now the people in government have a pretty wide berth as to what they can do to us, under the guise of doing it for us. They can now tell us to do things, under penalty if we don't.
So, yeah, we've got a huge task ahead of us. We have to hold the House and somehow increase the number of conservatives in it. We have to take the Senate. We don't need 60, but we have to take the Senate, and we have to win the White House. Then, after we do that, all the people who promise us from now until the election that they're gonna overturn and repeal Obamacare have then got to do it. They're gonna have to go in there and disempower themselves. And the Republicans have shown themselves to be equally adept at spending money. They like favorable newspaper stories about them in Washington, where they live. They like being thought of as cool, rather than fringe outliers.
So it's a monumental task, and there is not a person I know that thought this would be a win-win situation prior to the court's ruling on this case. Here's what Obama said about negative liberties. This is a quote back in 2001, 11 years ago. "To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."
He's upset that the court of Earl Warren did not break free from the constraints on government the Founders put in there. In other words, he's trashing the Founders here and anybody else who's come along and upheld them. "To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. (It) Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted."
Well, it has now. And that is revolutionary. That is monumental. And I'm probably talking to a brick wall to anybody under 30 who hasn't the slightest idea what I'm talking about 'cause they haven't been taught what the Constitution is in the first place. And that is the greatest document ever written in the world regarding individual liberty and freedom. The greatest document ever written in the world. It's not taught that way. It's taught as an antiquated piece of out-of-date junk that limits what the government can do for people, giving them this and giving them that and making them eat that for their own benefit and making them drive that for their own benefit. But, hell, it's far more ugly than just to eat and drive. I mean, the stuff that can be done once government takes over, well, the world is awash with living examples of what happens. To quote Hillary, (paraphrasing) "We're taking things away from you," money, "for your own good." To quote Bill Clinton, "Yeah, we're gonna raise your taxes 'cause we don't think you spend the money the right way." They tell us this.
RUSH: This Joanne in Tavares, Florida. Hi.
CALLER: This is she. Thank you for taking my call and for speaking for the people.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: I just want to say that this ruling enshrines deceit and propaganda of unconscionable human beings. And it fails to uphold truth and protect people from being forced to swallow lies. And I think we got there because it takes two parties: those who would deceive and those who are willing to be deceived. And I think Obama deceived and Roberts was willing to be deceived. I don't know why, but --
RUSH: He wasn't deceived. Don't misinterpret my tone. I'm not trying to sound dismissive of you. He knew exactly what he was doing, is my point. He knew exactly what he was doing. He found a way that nobody asked for to find this law constitutional, when it isn't, and we don't know the "why."
RUSH: We have Jan Crawford and her story that he caved to political pressure brought by the media and powerful Democrats, including the president. It could well be he's just a political hack all along; who knows. I mean there all kinds of theories going around out there. Some of them I'm not gonna mention. I'll just stick with what's been reported. It could be, Joanne, that he's just one of these people that wants to please the people in power. Who knows. Maybe this is how he gets in the big clique. You know, life is high school. We never get out of high school. Life is always high school. You can always boil it down to that.
CALLER: And my theory is that, though, by enshrining deceit, that doesn't leave much for people. That doesn't leave them --
RUSH: That's exactly right because he's broken faith. Once you break faith, it's like JR Ewing said back in Dallas, "Once you get past integrity, Honey, the rest is easy." Or something like that. It's close.
RUSH: You know, I think our previous caller was remembering an earlier time in America, an earlier time in our culture when lying had consequences. A lot of people are still caught in that trap. They think lying has consequences. Well, it doesn't anymore, not in Washington, certainly not politically, and not negative consequences, anyway. Depends on who you lie to and about what. You can be a hero.
RUSH: Well, what a program. You know every day, folks, the top news of the day is a chronicle of the country literally coming apart at the seams. No guardrails, no anchor, it seems. Nothing we thought we could count on as a guardrail or as a bulwark seems to be working. And as has been said: Everything's now up to us. If this health care bill, ObamaTax, is fully implement, this country is going to change in ways people never thought possible or dreamed of. We really do have to stop that from happening, and the only way to even give ourselves a shot at that is November.