RUSH: Dingy Harry and the Hobby Lobby. Now, yesterday, I actually think -- let me go out on a limb here. Well, actually it's not much of a limb. I think it needs to be seriously considered that Harry Reid is losing it, that he's not all there. This obsession he has with the Koch brothers alone should give everybody serious concern. He must mention these guys 250 times a week on the Senate floor. And they don't sponsor legislation. They contribute, they donate to causes. But he's obsessed with these two men.
He's blamed the Koch brothers for climate change, for global warming. He tries to attach the Koch brothers to virtually everything that he thinks is wrong. The Hobby Lobby decision also sent him off on a tirade that was practically incomprehensible, and yesterday in talking about it, Harry Reid actually said, "And we gotta do something about this Hobby Lobby legislation." But it wasn't legislation; it was a Supreme Court decision.
Now, I want to clear something up, because I've had a lot of people e-mail me in reaction to what Dingy Harry said. The Congress can of course theoretically overturn a Supreme Court decision if the decision is involving legislation. Now, if the Supreme Court has a decision that is constitutional, there's nothing that Congress can do to override that without amending the Constitution. The Hobby Lobby case was not a constitutional case. That was a case about a statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which we have discussed at great length here on this program.
So the Senate, if they want, can go back and try to pass legislation that would require and start the process all over again. They can do that and Dingy Harry is promising to do it. Story here, there's a YouTube video and so forth: "Senate Democrats said they plan to unveil legislation in the coming weeks in response to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case. 'This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we’re going to do something about it,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday. 'People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it’s -- they’re going to have -- be treated unfavorably come November with the elections.' Reid said the Senate needed to do something to 'ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.'
Now, I think it is a serious thing to consider that he may be unbalanced, but that is a side issue. Where does a member of Congress get off threatening the justices of the Supreme Court, which is what he did yesterday. Now, Obama did the same thing. When he was worried that the Supreme Court might strike down Obamacare, he issued threats, and of course he insulted the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech, ever since the Citizens United ruling. The left has become unhinged because of that ruling.
But I want to credit ABC News here, because they picked up something that I wouldn't expect modern media to get. Harry Reid said, "The Senate needs to do something to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men." ABC correctly points out here that Harry Reid's reference to five white men is incorrect. It was four white men and one African-American man.
Now, I knew immediately when Dingy Harry said five white men he was off the reservation and wrong. But I didn't think ABC would pick up on it, but they did, I gotta give 'em credit. I mean, obviously you can't get anything past the reporters at ABC News. Oh. Oh. Speaking of that, and we've got the sound bite coming up. After we on this program chastised ABC News for ignoring the story that their White House correspondent, Jonathan Karl, uncovered at the White House press briefing with Josh Earnest, they ran that back-and-forth a day later.
You remember Jonathan Karl had statistics from the LA Times that differed greatly with what the administration was saying about the numbers and circumstances of these undocumented kids. And Jonathan Karl, "Doesn't this LA Times story prove that you have been providing disinformation?" That tete-a-tete happened, but ABC News did not run it, and that's the kind of stuff that really happened to Sharyl Attkisson at CBS when she was reporting on Benghazi.
So ABC News finally ran the Jonathan Karl story after we called attention to it. I don't know that we had anything to do with it, but they did run the story. And likewise ABC very, very, very crafty bunch here, figured out that Harry Reid was wrong talking about five white men in the Supreme Court. (interruption) Well, it might have been a planned insult to Justice Thomas. He has insulted Clarence Thomas countless times before.
Get this. This is a headline from ABC News: "Federal Judge Tells Supreme Court to 'STFU' -- US federal Judge Richard Kopf declared Monday he thinks it’s time for the Supreme Court to 'STFU.'" Yep. "Kopf made his pronouncement in a rather colorful blog post regarding the Supreme Court’s recent decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby." He was appointed, by the way, by George H. W. Bush in 1992. Clearly I think H. W. Bush was reaching across the aisle with this. He obviously appointed somebody sympathetic to the Democrats, '92, reelection year, trying to gain favor, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So this guy Kopf on his blog post said: "Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent -- this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu." Federal judge. (interruption) It is unheard of, but everything is breaking down. All of the traditional, you know, we talk about manners and respect for the system and all of the conventions that comprise order and respect for the system and so forth are just breaking down. The left is allowed to say whatever they want about anybody or any institution with impunity.
Now, back to the Senate Democrats and their bill to override the Hobby Lobby decision. "Congressional Democrats unveiled legislation Wednesday that would override the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case by requiring most employers to provide federally-required contraception and other health services even if they have religious objections." So the US Senate is gonna look at the First Amendment and go "psst" in a piece of legislation.
"The legislation, being introduced by Democrats in both the Senate and the House, would require all employers to abide by the contraception mandate included in the Affordable Care Act -- even if they claim to have religious objections." And then National Review Online has posted a comment, a slogan actually, that belongs to the feminazi group NARAL Pro-Choice America. They used to be called the National Abortion Rights Action League, but now it's NARAL Pro-Choice America.
I gotta get the whole slogan here. It's something about, "Hey, Supreme Court, no bosses in my bedroom. My sex is not my boss's business." It's contradictory. I can't find the whole thing. It's absolutely absurdly hilarious, and I thought I had it on this piece of paper, but I don't. It's a good time to take a break. Let me find it. I hate to do this, folks, this is highly unprofessional, thinking I've got something right in front of me, and I don't. I'll find it.
RUSH: All right, here's what it is: My sex life is none of my boss's business; therefore he should be forced to pay for it. That's what they mean. "It's not your boss's business." They're running around with all these signs. "It's not your boss's business," meaning your sex life, "except your boss should have to pay for it," is what they mean. You know, I got chastised for this, too.
Just like I got chastised by people saying, "Rush, you're not gonna win any converts here by appearing to be opposed to the children coming into the country. We're a compassionate country. Young people here, you're never gonna convince them. They want the kids to come in. They're sick, they're hungry, they're thirsty. We're America. You're never gonna win these young people."
By the same token, "Rush, don't you understand? It isn't about contraception. It's about sex. Everybody wants to have sex, and men want contraception so much they don't care who pays for it, and if the woman aren't gonna pay for it, somebody else better because the men are not gonna stop having sex themselves." So I was chastised that I've gotta understand it that way.
They said, "Rush, you're looking at this the old-fashioned way. The old-fashioned way is they ought to provide for themselves. 'You want to have contraception, you should go buy it.' You're missing the point. The way young people look at it today is they want to have sex, and they don't want there to be any consequences, and there's contraception that can make sure there's no consequences.
"And if you make women buy it when they don't want to buy it and can't afford it, then there might not be any contraception which means there isn't gonna be any sex, and nobody wants that. What everybody wants is sex whenever they want it with no consequences. So, Rush, you better get on board and understand that that's what the contraception battle is really about.
"Young men and young women both want the government or the business or the employer providing the contraception because young men and young women both want sex whenever with no consequences. And if you persist in saying that the individuals involved ought to buy it themselves, you're never gonna persuade 'em. You're never gonna get it 'em. You're gonna continue to lose 'em because they're gonna think you don't want them to have fun."
I was. I was upbraided that way.
That's exactly what I was told. I was told that I am not understanding that this is not an issue of personal responsibility. I'm missing the boat when I look at it that way. I was upbraided. I was told this by two or three people how I'm missing the boat. "You're wrong, Rush! See, this is an example of how America's changed and you haven't kept up. It's not about individual responsibility anymore, anywhere in America.
"It's about being able to do what you want to do and not being judged for it and having it paid for as a health benefit, and whoever offers that is gonna get their vote. If you don't see it that way, you're gonna continue to have them against you." So, I just want to tell you how I was upbraided, that I was looking at this the wrong way. (interruption) Did I buy into it?
No! I mean, it's sad that the whole concept of personal responsibility is so cavalier now. It's so irrelevant. It's so behind the times. "Personal responsibility? That's not what this is about, Rush. This is about sex! You're coming across as though you're against sex. Don't you see that?" This is what I was told.
I said, "How much sense does that make?"
"I don't care, Rush. That's how you're coming across. When you sit there and persist in saying, 'It's only the $9 a month, and why should an employer or you have to pay for it,' all they're hearing is you don't think they should be having sex, and it's none of your business." (chuckles) I refuse to make such a declaration. I'm not gonna sink to that level, to state the obvious. (interruption) That's ridiculous. (interruption)
Snerdley, it's not that they're dumb. It's the way they've been raised. (chuckling) It's the one of the few pleasures left they see. (chuckling) They can't find jobs. There aren't any careers. Cable TV only goes so far and nobody's providing that. You know, by the way, that is another thing that they're starting to resent: Having to pay for cable TV. Cord cutters! Have you heard of that term?
I'll give you an example of this very quickly. Look at the app HBO GO. HBO GO allows you to watch HBO on your iPhone, your smart phone, your iPad, whatever. However, the only way you can, legally, is to have an account with a cable company or satellite provider. In other words, you can't get the HBO app and just watch HBO without a cable subscription -- and that ticks them off.
They don't want to have to buy cable to watch HBO.
They want to be able to cut the cord from cable and just get the HBO app or the Showtime app or whatever on their phone or on their iPad and watch it without having to pay for it. So why should contraception be looked at differently? I mean, if they don't want to have to pay to watch pay TV, then why should we expect them to want to or understand that they have to pay for birth control?
(interruption) Well, now, see, Snerdley is shouting, "Generation Mooch! That's what they are. They're just Generation Mooch." That's Snerdley saying that. I've got enough catcalls without throwing the Generation Mooch line. But it's the way they've been raised. By the way, that's exactly the message of the political party they find attractive, the Democrat Party. That's exactly the message: "Why should anything cost you anything? Big Business is screwing you! They're cheating you. They're robbing you. What's wrong with doing the same to them?"