| Alito Circus Begins In the Senate |
|
January 9, 2005 |
|
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT |
 |
|
 RUSH: Well, it's circus time, folks. It's predictable as it can be. The circus has started. Senator Specter has now gaveled this prestigious committee to order. The inquisition of Judge Sam Alito is underway. Greetings, folks. It's great to be with you, great to have you here as we start a brand-new week of broadcast excellence here on the one and only EIB Network. El Rushbo at 800-282-2882. The e-mail address is Rush@eibnet.com. Here's what's going to happen for the next three hours -- actually, the next three hours and 15 minutes. The senators on the committee will each begin ten-minute opening statements. Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap, and they will all wax eloquent about how concerned they are, or the Democrats will. This is so predictable. I mean, everything they know, everything they're going to do, we know. It is so predictable. Everything they're doing can be debunked. Every lie that they're telling can be debunked. I'll get started on doing a little bit of that today.
At 3:45 today after a little break, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman will introduce Alito. At four o'clock Alito will be sworn in and make his opening statement. So there really isn't going to be anything happening today in terms of fireworks back and forth, but what will happen today is a constant camera shot on Alito's face, and the attempt that will be made today by the Democrats as they are making their opening statements will be to cause Alito to look mean, to cause Alito to look sinister, to cause some kind of unwarranted facial expression as a reaction to whatever it is that they are saying. The preparations for Alito probably have gone I'm guessing pretty well. I think people involved here are pretty confident. You know, you go back to the Roberts hearings. Roberts is being called by some the anti-Bork hearings, because he had a posture that was exact opposite of Bork's. He had a paper trail that was hardly existent, and he gave them answers that they wanted to hear.
The Democrats realized how they were skunked on that, so they're out there saying, "I'm not going to put up with any of that kind of stuff this time. He's going to tell us everything we want to know. If he doesn't answer these questions, it's too bad." Somebody even asked him, "Well, what about the Ruth Bader Ginsburg answer?" Somebody asked Chuck Schumer, "What about the Ruth Bader Ginsburg answer?" "I'm not gonna answer that. It could come before the court." "That's not going to fly here. If he doesn't open up, why, we're going to do this!" Schumer is out there threatening to filibuster. They know what's at stake here, and all their eggs have been rolled up into one basket. I found it humorous. By that, I mean, this is the Supreme Court, for all this talk about prisons and spying and security, this is what they really care about, the Supreme Court, as you all know -- we've discussed it in great detail on this program -- they can't win elections. They cannot influence the American body politic sufficiently to win their votes, so they need the court system whereby their beliefs can be enacted as law, bypassing the judicial process in this country. |
|
|
Yesterday, Dianne Feinstein, I think she was on Fox. Yesterday she said, "It is dangerous when one party controls the three branches of government -- and by that I mean the White House, the House and the Senate." Now some people said, "Wait a minute. That's not the three branches of government. The three branches of government are the executive, the legislative and the judicial," and clearly Senator Feinstein called the three branches of government the House, Senate and the White House. Now, people are saying, "Is she that stupid?" No. I don't think she's that stupid. I don't think she's that ignorant, folks. I think she thinks the American people are, and I think that in that comment, she's trying to make it out like there's been a coup d'etat, and that the fact that the Republicans own the government, "the House, the Senate and the White House," is a bad thing, and it all ties into their culture-of-corruption theme. More about that and the spying issues as we unfold the program today.
It's interesting because it wasn't dangerous when the Democrats controlled all of Dianne Feinstein's three branches. Really the way to analyze what Senator Feinstein said here, she's says, "It's dangerous when one party controls the three branches, the White House, the House, and the Senate," what she means is the American people are dangerous, because they elected the three branches. So Senator Feinstein is following, whether she knows this or not, the playbook. The American people can't be trusted. It's the American people who are to blame here. The American people put the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government and that's not right and that's not fair and that's why we've got to do something about this. That's why they, by the way, have to control the courts as a check on the public's will, or as a check on the public's stupidity, since you, the public, elected Republicans to run all of her so-called three branches, they have to control the courts to make sure your stupidity and ignorance is reined in.
Of course, when people elect liberal Democrats to run things, why, they're acting sensibly! The American people are brilliant in those circumstances, but when the Republicans are elected to run all three branches it's the result of slick marketing and packaging or other such BS. They're going to make abortion a big issue here, and I have to tell you: My sense is that, abortion is simply not the #1 issue on the minds of people anymore, and the #1 issue or the series of important issues that are at the top of most people's lists are those issues the Democrats miss the boat on time and time again. For example, take a look at this spying business. Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times had a great piece over the weekend, and I'll paraphrase what he said. Basically if the Democrats get their way on this NSA spying program, Al-Qaeda will have an immediate way to succeed with any operation in this country they want. All they'll need to do is get an operative in the United States and then get a phone call going. Any operative can call any other operative from this country to any other country and not be heard because the Democrats will see to it in their zealotry here, to allow unfettered communications between the enemy and their controllers, if they succeed in stopping this so-called spying program.
The bottom line on that, the administration would have been irresponsible had they not begun such a program. These attacks occurred to the United States. That's what I mean, the American people understand full well, at least a great percentage of you understand full well that if the Democrats get their way on this, that enemy combatants will be able to get into this country -- and we know how open the borders are and how easy it is to get here. So they'll be able to get in and make phone calls to their superiors outside the country and nobody will be able to monitor them, and they'll be able to plan all kinds of attacks. People know this, and that's the position the Democrats have staked out for themselves, once again appearing to be on the side of the enemy. |
|
|
 The public is up to speed on the courts, the public is to up to speed now on the activism of the Democrats, and they don't like it. The public understands that every conservative nominee is not a monster now. This is the thing that the Democrats haven't figured out. They still live in their world where everything is a monopoly. There is no alternative media. They still get to blanket the country with their view, and they have failed to realize that with every phony ad that they run or lie that they state on television -- like happened all weekend on the Sunday shows, that there is a media out there that will contradict it and expose it for what it is: an untruth. They used to be able to get away with characterizing every conservative judicial nominee as a monster. They don't get away with that anymore. Furthermore, I don't think the public likes the people that are running around throwing all the mud: Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, these are not likable people; these are not likable figures. They act sanctimonious; they act superiorist, and they are condescending, and it rubs people the wrong way.
The public doesn't like the media mouthpieces that are regurgitating all the lines that these people repeat, primary from the ACLU, and the people are getting further and further fed up with the ACLU day in and day out. So what you have here, the nomination of judge Sam Alito today can be set up this way. It is the people versus Hollywood and the ACLU. The people of this country versus Hollywood and the ACLU. We've got memos. We've got memos from the judiciary committee staff showing us that these groups own the Democrats, these groups are radical leftist groups. They're dictating even the questions that some of these Democrats ask, as was the case with Senator Feinstein when she was questioning Judge Roberts last time around. We'll get into some specifics as the program unfolds, and if I am told that some particular senator is actually making a big fool of himself or saying something extraordinary, we'll JIP it, we'll JIP the hearings. But other than we'll just wait for the highlights overnight and play you some stuff tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be the big day when the questioning begins. This is just the posturing today and I think today will be well spent setting everybody up for what's coming in these opening statements and the questioning tomorrow. You can get a good idea from looking at some of the MoveOn.org ads and other TV ads. For example, the Democrats are actually going to try to make the American people believe that this nominee believes in trip searching ten-year-old girls. They're actually going to try to make people believe that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Senator Leahy, Senator Pat "Leaky" Leahy, is now speaking. You know, this is something that's always bothered me. It's not just exclusive to this bunch of Democrats. This arrogant condescension, this pontificating as though they are the smartest people in the room, and all these nominees can run rings around these guys when it comes to the law, and when it comes to the Constitution. I know they're the Senate, and by virtue of the Constitution they are entitled to this role. It's just the way they play it. The sanctimony. The sanctimony, and these people just come across as unlikable. Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy. I mean, at least with Clinton you had a guy, "Ah, might be fun to go to a ball game with and chase women afterwards." It might be fun to hang around with the guy, but not these guys. These guys are just sticks in the mud. I see Leahy and I see a guy sitting under his apple tree up in Vermont and the apple's hitting him on the head and he's not even knowing it while he's reading up on the threats to democracy posed by all these judicial nominees.
Now, the anti-Alito TV commercials are focusing on abortion and strip searching ten-year-old girls, and of course one way to look at that is these ten-year-old girls that the Democrats are all worried that Alito will allow to be strip searched, at least they could be strip searched because if you leave it up to the Democrats they wouldn't be alive, they would have been aborted. These are little girls liberals would just as soon have aborted, and there's nothing whatsoever in the record to show that Alito is in favor of strip searching ten-year-old girls, nothing whatsoever. Here's a little review. Meet the Press. Senator Schumer attacked the judge, Judge Alito at length, and he identified what he said were a number of elements that he saw in Judge Alito's record that he finds "troubling." Here's just a couple of inaccurate statements that Schumer made. Schumer said Alito was "one of the very few justices." Of course, he's not a justice yet. He's a judge. But we'll let that pass. |
|
|
Senator Schumer just got confused, I'm sure. Maybe it was a faux pas. Alito was "one of the very few justices [sic] to say that the federal government cannot regulate a machine guns. The federal government has regulated machine guns since the days of John Dillinger." Well, the fact is Judge Alito has never said that Congress cannot regulate machine guns. He's never said it! In his dissent in what's known as the Ribar case, Judge Alito actually said explicitly that Congress can regulate machine guns and moreover he set out a road map showing Congress how to do so. Senator Schumer's comments suggest that Judge Alito address the whole issue of machine gun regulation writ large. In fact, the case that Schumer is talking about, the Ribar case, regarded only the purely intrastate possession of machine guns, which is a narrow slice of machine-gun-related activity. It had nothing to do with interstate transportation or sale or use of machine guns. So keep a sharp eye on that.
 The next one I've already alluded to. Schumer: "He said, for instance, that a ten-year-old girl could be strip searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip searched." This is a pure fabrication. It is an utter misrepresentation, and it is about a dissenting opinion that Alito wrote in the case Doe v. Groody. The issues over which the judges on the panel disagreed was precisely whether the search warrant did authorize the search of other persons in the drug dealer's house. "In Judge Alito's view, the search warrant incorporated the attached affidavit which had been provided with the magistrate judge that issued the warrant and that clearly sought permission to search others in the house. Judge Alito made the point, which is legally correct, that a warrant should be ready in a common-sense manner. Moreover, the legal question in the case was whether the police officers should be personally liable for money damages for their conduct. Judge Alito also expressed distaste for the search but also frustration with the fact that drug dealers often misuse children in plying their criminal trade," and I could go on and on and on.
Here's another one, then. He said -- this is Schumer, talking about Alito -- "He has said, for instance, in the past that one man, one vote, something that's accepted as a tenet of our democracy that you should not have one legislative district with 20,000 people and one with 300,000 people. He said that was okay." Once again, an utter lie, an utter fabrication, astoundingly so. Judge Sam Alito has never expressed disagreement with the principle of one person, one vote. In fact, it's been reported that he has told senators that he considers it a bedrock principle of constitutional law, and you can't find anything that Alito has written or said anywhere that he would ever countenance such a grotesquely disproportionate apportionment. I'm just warning you. You might think this is all gobbledygook -- and it is. It's all specious. It's all BS, and it may sound a little mundane, but I'm trying to get you prepped for what you're going to hear out of these guys' mouths as they go through their opening statements and get into questioning.
Here's another thing that Schumer said: "In a speech before the Federalist Society in 2000, he said he believed in the unitary executive. That means the executive has all the power. It means you couldn't have an FTC. It means you couldn't have a 9/11 Commission. It means that in a time of war relevant to today that you could have warrants issued so you could go into somebody's home without going to a judge." Now, that is just patently absurd. That is absurd as suggesting that Judge Alito believes that you could strip search ten-year-olds. Nothing in his jurisprudence, nothing in what anybody has been able to find in Alito's record substantiates the allegation that he believes in or would vote for any of these outcomes. Judge Alito has repeatedly ruled against executive interests where the law and facts supported the outcome. Moreover, Judge Alito has expressed a healthy respect for the separation of powers. Now, I'll tell you what's going to happen. If the Democrats do follow through with these things, they're going to get stung and they're going to get bitten in the rear just like they did with Judge Roberts because this guy is going to run rings around them.
He is going to have the facts at his disposal on his own rulings, on his own writings and he's going to be able to point out how, "No, senator, you're wrong, I never said that, no, senator, you're wrong, I never wrote that." These people are trying to get by with what they've gotten by with for the last 30 years and that is just making things up about these people. All under the rubric of their extremist, out of the mainstream kooks, and so they're going to try to get away with this. They hope they can intimidate the guy like they hoped they could intimidate Judge Roberts into a facial expression that would betray something. Remember, a lot of this is television and a lot of it will be how somebody looks. And that's why there's a split screen on Alito all day today, and these guys know it full well, and the Democrats, as they go through their opening statements are going to be trying to get him to utter something under his breath or to cause him to make a facial expression that makes him look sinister or dislikable or some such thing. Right now, he just looks bored, and that's the best face that he can affect. Senator Leahy just finished, but it just -- pay attention, but just look bored. Do not, you know, smile at the appropriate times, but looking bored when these Democrats are going through all of this is probably not a bad strategery.
END TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
