RUSH: All right, so we had a breakfast today with Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Arlen Specter, Bill Frist and the president, and Harry Reid came out (summary): “Oh, this is wonderful! We\u2019re glad we\u2019re being consulted. No names are mentioned but we\u2019re going to get this done together. We\u2019re working together. We love each other,” blah, blah, blah. It just made you want to throw up. Let\u2019s listen to Chuck Schumer\u2019s reaction.<\/p>\n
SCHUMER: Let us hope that this is not the end of the consultation process, but the beginning.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Arrogant, arrogant.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2005\/07\/supreme_court_still_on_front_page__07_18_05_.Par_.0007.ImageFile.jpg\")
SCHUMER: Let us hope that there will be the kind of dialogue — I reiterate my call to the president to have a summit, to call a good number of Democrats and Republicans together for a day at Camp David, for an evening or a dinner at the White House and have a real back-and-forth where we roll up our sleeves and really get into a serious, detailed discussion of how we all feel.<\/p>\n
RUSH: This is arrogance like I have never seen it. This is a guy who\u2019s only got one arm sticking out of the quicksand saying, “If you don\u2019t get me out of here I\u2019m not going to save you.” This guy is beyond the pale. He wants a summit? Breakfast is not enough he wants a summit at Camp David? Get all these Democrats together; let\u2019s really have a real consultation process. Only one problem, Senator Schumer: You are a loser. You didn\u2019t win the election. You don\u2019t get to do this. The arrogance that you seem to have that the Democrats run this country; it\u2019s only legitimate when the Democrats are running this country.<\/p>\n
I hope you can hear how you sound to people, senator, because you\u2019re becoming a laughingstock. I mean, people that have not even been taught the Constitution understand how wrong you are, Senator Schumer. And we couldn\u2019t complete this process without listening to Senator Leahy. He was on Inside Politics yesterday with Candy Crowley on CNN, and she says, “We\u2019ve heard a lot, and I\u2019m wondering here, if you take a conservative judge, when is a conservative judge simply that, and when is a conservative judge divisive?”<\/p>\n
LEAHY: Well, they\u2019re divisive because they\u2019ve, uh, taken positions that\u2019s shown that they\u2019re almost monolithically in favor of one group, like just only rule in favor of business. They\u2019ll only rule in favor of a certain class of people or — those — those — there are some judges that are like that. They usually end up being reversed but you don\u2019t want them on the Supreme Court where there\u2019s nobody there to reverse them.<\/p>\n
CROWLEY: Would you support — ?<\/p>\n
LEAHY: I worry when they\u2019re an activist judge, uh, who almost reflexively vote down laws passed by the Congress or by the states and create laws of their own, substitute. The two most activist judges we have right now are Justice Thomas, uh, and Justice Scalia.<\/p>\n
RUSH: (Laughing.) The two LEAST activist judges are Thomas and Scalia. What you just heard Senator Leahy do here — remember: words mean things — Senator Leahy is twisting the word “activist” around and applying it to originalists like Scalia and Thomas. This other gibberish about, “Well, they\u2019re divisive because they\u2019ve taken positions that show they\u2019re almost monolithically in favor of just one group, like they\u2019ll just only rule in favor of business, they\u2019ll only rule…” Everything with these people apparently is class envy, and the court is there to balance the economic scale, guarantee equality of outcomes or sameness of outcomes or what have you. But regardless, I just think this is pathetic. I think these people …(sigh). They don\u2019t have the ability to be embarrassed.<\/p>\n
If they were embarrassed with themselves or could be embarrassed, they would have stopped letting Ted Kennedy go out and speak for them a long time ago. But it\u2019s amazing to watch. Some might say it\u2019s a once great party, the Democratic Party, literally now just crumbling. Doorjamb by doorjamb the mansion that was the Democratic Party is being torn down, doorjamb by doorjamb but it\u2019s happening. (interruption) Well, I know. It\u2019s frustrating. It\u2019s frustrating to a lot of people. But you know what\u2019s frustrating about it? I\u2019ve always thought — just in interactions with people — we all have various personality types that rub us the wrong way. Whether it\u2019s these guys in politics or whether it\u2019s the neighbor, whether it\u2019s a coworker, and speaking for me because I can only speak for me, the personality traits that have rubbed me wrong the most are arrogance, condescension, and lying — and insulting my intelligence, people telling me things I know are untrue, as though they think I\u2019m an idiot and will believe it.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s all wrapped up into one bundle when you get these Senate Democrats. They are all arrogant. They are all condescending, and they think that all of us are absolute blithering idiots and the country can\u2019t run without them in charge, and their birthright as Democrats is to run this country, and we have gotten in the way, and they think very little of us for that and they\u2019re going to get even one way or the other. If they can\u2019t persuade us to vote for them, then they will do their best to get the people we vote for thrown out of office or thrown in jail. If we don\u2019t vote for them, then they will see to it that what they believe should happen to the country will be implemented by a bunch of activist judges where we can say nothing about it. But here when they have gone down to humiliating defeat in the House and Senate over the last — well, since \u201994.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s ten years, ten, 11 years — when they are losing their percentages in both bodies and the margin of victory for the Republicans in the presidential race continues to expand, these guys act like they win. They act like they\u2019re the winners and should have won. “So since we should have won we\u2019re going to act like we did.” Just the whole arrogance here of Schumer demanding a summit, Camp David, dinner at the White House; Leahy lying through his teeth about who activist judges are, “always defending just one group of people. ” Yes, it\u2019s frustrating but it\u2019s also indicative, folks, of a party in the midst of its last gasp. One more bite from Candy Crowley. She said, “I know you know that Republicans have a different definition of what an activist judge is, senator.”<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2005\/07\/arrogant_losers_act_like_winners__07_12_05_.Par_.0008.ImageFile.gif\")
LEAHY: Well, it\u2019s the same definition they\u2019ve always used for, uh, Democrats. They said Democrats who would strike down a law passed by the people and substitute something of their own. I\u2019m just using their — by their own definition, the two most activist judges there right now are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.<\/p>\n
RUSH: What he\u2019s basing this on is a recent poll that showed Scalia and Thomas have voted most often lately to say that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. That\u2019s not what we mean by “activist,” and he knows that. Activist judges are judges that don\u2019t interpret the Constitution. Activist judges are judges that actually don\u2019t want there to be a Constitution. If we\u2019re going to have activist judges, folks, we don\u2019t need a Constitution. It\u2019s just like if we\u2019re going to let anybody in the country that wants in, we don\u2019t have a country. We may as well not have a border. If we\u2019re not going to enforce the border, we don\u2019t have a country. Well, if we\u2019re going to have judges that will not look to the Constitution, we don\u2019t have a Constitution, and that\u2019s what we get with activist judges.<\/p>\n
We get activist judges who take their personal policy preferences to the bench, and then they decide cases on the basis of those personal policy preferences and they call that “law.” So their personal policy preferences become constitutional. Well, they\u2019re not. You can say something is constitutional all you want but it is only constitutional if it is. If it\u2019s not constitutional, it\u2019s not — and these are, you know, not matters of debate. That\u2019s why originalist is a key word. You go back; you look at the original intent. You can find it. It\u2019s there. Federalist Papers, numerous discussions, the document itself. But look at this takings case in New London, Connecticut.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear, but the US Supreme Court three weeks ago said, “Ah, we think it means something else.” So now we have a bunch of states and the US Congress thinking of writing a law that basically says what the Constitution already says. So we\u2019re having to rewrite the Constitution because we\u2019ve got a bunch of judges who are ignoring it, plain and simple. That\u2019s the definition of an activist judge — and in this case, Thomas and Scalia are not activist. Basically let me make it as simple as I can: An activist judge is a liberal who believes liberalism should become institutionalized in the courts. You want a great definition? To show you how out of whack Leahy and his comments are, you look at the eminent domain decision out of New London, Connecticut. That was a bunch of liberals. Liberals are said to stand for the little guy. That\u2019s what Leahy just is: They stand for the little guy against the big guy.<\/p>\n
What did the Supreme Court just do? Just stood for a local government over a little guy and said the local government can say to the little guy, “You don\u2019t own that property that you actually own. We\u2019re going to take it away from you. We\u2019re going to give it to this other private citizen because he\u2019s going to generate more tax revenue for us,” and so a lot of people have to get it through their heads now. The US Supreme Court, the liberals of this country do not stand for the little guy. They\u2019ll sweep the little guy out of the way as soon as he gets in the way. They have to. What\u2019s paramount is big government. Be it local government, state government, federal government, it\u2019s gotta be big. It\u2019s gotta be big and all-powerful.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: All right, so we had a breakfast today with Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Arlen Specter, Bill Frist and the president, and Harry Reid came out (summary): “Oh, this is wonderful! We\u2019re glad we\u2019re being consulted. No names are mentioned but we\u2019re going to get this done together. We\u2019re working together. We love each other,” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n