{"id":4192,"date":"2016-02-15T17:36:31","date_gmt":"2016-02-15T17:36:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-02-15T17:36:31","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T17:36:31","slug":"it_s_up_to_the_republicans_to_stop_obama_from_replacing_scalia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2016\/02\/15\/it_s_up_to_the_republicans_to_stop_obama_from_replacing_scalia\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s Up to the Republicans to Stop Obama from Replacing Scalia"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

Let me just reiterate. We\u2019re gonna get into this in detail, by the way. I\u2019m gonna share with you some of the comments that are out there. We\u2019ll discuss all the different analysis about Obama and the replacement for Justice Scalia, but it\u2019s really gonna come down to the Republicans, and they\u2019re saying are the right things right now.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve noticed McConnell said that president “should not” make an appointment during the final year. We\u2019ve got Schumer and the Democrat Party hypocrisy where they have advocated exactly what the Republicans advocate for today, but they\u2019re acting like nobody remembers them saying it and so forth. I\u2019ll get into all of that. But McConnell did not say “would.” He said “should.” He did not say, “No way, not ever, no how is Obama gonna get a nominee.” He said he “shouldn\u2019t.” There\u2019s wiggle room there.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: This is what presidential elections are all about, Supreme Court justices. This is going to add a new focus to the presidential campaign. Even though Supreme Court nominations already are an integral part, this is going to hyperfocus it. It\u2019s going to eliminate it even more greatly. The reason that that\u2019s important is because there is yet another opportunity, and there have been many of them, and this is a great opportunity for the Republican Party once again to contrast itself with the Democrats. Who would the Democrats pick, what kind of justices, and what does it lead to, versus the justices that conservatives would pick. So it\u2019s gonna be a big deal. <\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s go to the McConnell\u2019s statement. “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday signaled there would be no vote on any appointment picked by President Obama to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia — setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown in Washington that will likely result in gridlock for the remainder of the year.” McConnell is not planning on bringing to the floor for a vote any nominee Obama selects to succeed Scalia, according to a Senate GOP aide. <\/line><\/p>\n

Now, what is another word for “gridlock” here? Another word for “gridlock” is “government shutdown.” The magic words, are they not? How many times have you heard a Republican elected official, or even a member of the Republican media commentariat, wring their hands and lament that we cannot have another government shutdown. We cannot be held responsible for it. If there\u2019s a government shutdown, we are going to get blamed for it, and we will lose elections, that people like their government, they want their government open and operating. They want their government cutting checks. They want their government providing benefits, unemployment, welfare, you name it. <\/p>\n

And if I\u2019ve heard this once, I\u2019ve heard it a gazillion times, Republicans say, “We can\u2019t do this. We cannot do anything that will shut down the government,” which has always meant we can\u2019t oppose Obama. We can\u2019t stop Obama on the budget or anything else because the Democrats then start wailing about a government shutdown, and the Republicans can\u2019t deal with it. <\/p>\n

So, anticipating — and believe me here, folks, when I tell you, there is no compromise candidate, there is no meeting halfway. That\u2019s not who Obama is. It\u2019s not who the Democrats are. And a Supreme Court justice is the place, if there\u2019s one place above all where there will be no compromise, it\u2019s the Supreme Court and a seat thereupon. There will be no compromise. Obama is going to find he\u2019s got a chance to replace a textualist originalist. <\/p>\n

Antonin Scalia embodied the absolute worst of a Supreme Court justice as far as Obama and the left are concerned. Of all the so-called conservative justices, Scalia was satanic, because Scalia was formidable. Scalia could not be defeated intellectually. Scalia could not be trumped in any way, shape, manner, or form, other than by votes. But nobody would outanalyze him, nobody would outsmart him because he believed in things the left doesn\u2019t. <\/p>\n

<\/a>They don\u2019t believe in the original intent and finding it. They don\u2019t believe in looking at the text of the Constitution and combining that with original intent. It\u2019s kind of a mistake to say that Scalia was a strict constructionist. He was not. He was a textualist. And here\u2019s the difference, as he explained it. He said a strict constructionist would look at the First Amendment and say it only applied to the written word, \u2019cause at the time the Constitution was written, that\u2019s all there was. There wasn\u2019t telephone. There wasn\u2019t radio or TV. There was nothing on the air. All there was was spoken and written. <\/p>\n

And if you interpret the Constitution as a strict constructionist, as it was constructed with original intent, then you\u2019d have to say that there is no free speech unless something\u2019s written. And he said that\u2019s not at all what they meant. You have to be able to interpret the text, the textual content and so forth. So he considered himself to be a originalist and a textualist — his word. And you have to understand what they meant. And the only way you can understand what they meant was to study them, the founders who wrote it. And what they meant with the First Amendment was that government would not stand in the way of anything anybody said anywhere, anytime, anyhow, except, you know, “fire” in a crowded theater. <\/p>\n

But as a philosophical and legal matter, it did not mean only what was written or only what was said, because their view was far more inclusive than that. It was philosophical. Free speech in a constitutional republic is fundamental. There can be no abridgement of it, period. So the point here is that as far as Obama and everybody else on the left is concerned, Scalia was the absolute worst thing they had to deal with. The fact that Scalia is now gone, to replace Scalia with a moderate, with somebody that might go either way just to satisfy, just to get a justice on the court, no way. Obama\u2019s gonna do whatever he has to, using any trick he\u2019s got, and he\u2019s gonna be guided by his years of experience with the Republicans pretty much laying down. He\u2019s gonna go for as powerful a leftist justice as he can get. This is it. This is where you overturn the Second Amendment, folks. This is where you use the government to get rid of the parts of the Constitution holding you back. This is it. They\u2019re not gonna compromise on this just to get the court back to a capacity of nine. And that\u2019s all anybody needs to know here. <\/p>\n

You can overanalyze this from now until this is all done. But that\u2019s gonna be Obama\u2019s objective going in. And the Republicans\u2019 objective had better be to stop it. And the Republicans had better realize they are fully within their constitutional rights and powers to stop it. There\u2019s nothing in Article 2 that says the president is guaranteed to get his confirmation. There is nothing in there that says the Senate must fill the court up to nine. They can leave it at eight if they want to. Congress defines the courts. It\u2019s there in the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Now, the left and their voters don\u2019t look at this like that at all. This is way, way above them. To them it\u2019s simply a matter of fairness and equality. And the rules say there are nine, and the president gets to put on who he wants, and anybody that stands in the way needs to be destroyed, and the president gets what he wants. And anybody that doesn\u2019t let the president have what he wants is in violation of something, and they\u2019re gonna be targeted to be destroyed or what have you. <\/line><\/p>\n

I guarantee you they\u2019re salivating. Everywhere you could find in the deep, dark crevices of wherever they hang out, they\u2019re salivating at the opportunity they\u2019ve got here. And they are not going to squander it. And if Obama thinks that he can get what he wants by simply threatening a government shutdown? What if Obama and the Democrats threaten to shut down the government? Already the news stories are referring to “this will likely result in gridlock.” The debate over the next nominee and the confirmation fight will likely result in gridlock for the remainder of the year. That\u2019s akin to a government shutdown. <\/p>\n

If Obama goes out and says (imitating Obama), “These Republicans are standing in the way of every aspect of my agenda, not just this court fight, but they\u2019re being obstructionist, and in fact they have shut down the government.” Will that cause panic to ensue? Well, it always does. I\u2019m not predicting doom and gloom. I\u2019m trying to alert everybody to this so that we can prepare for not falling for this. <\/p>\n

Don\u2019t fall for a government shutdown, GOP, again. And who cares if you get blamed. This is bigger than your feelings. It\u2019s bigger than whether you get blamed or not. And, believe me, remember what McConnell said a week or two ago now, he said that we\u2019re not going to stop the Obama agenda. This is before Justice Scalia passed away. He said we\u2019re not gonna oppose the Obama agenda because that might be problematic for our Republican presidential nominee. It might make us and the party look like we can\u2019t make Washington work, so they\u2019re not gonna stop Obama. He made it plain. <\/p>\n

Does that transfer to this? Well, not according to McConnell\u2019s statement. McConnell\u2019s statement is: “No vote on Scalia replacement under Obama.” But I need to find the exact — I thought I had it in this story but I don\u2019t. He used the word “should.” Obama “should not,” not “would not.” Some people, “You\u2019re over overanalyzing this.” I don\u2019t think so. I\u2019m just using intelligence guided by experience here, folks. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Let me get some phone calls in on this, \u2019cause we are going to be hopscotching all over the place today, and I don\u2019t want to put too much distance in something we\u2019re talking about and calls on that subject. So we\u2019ll start in St. Petersburg, Florida, with David. Great to have you on the program today, sir. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, thank you, and mega dittos. And I would just say that this is the day that our founders planned for when they created a checks-and-balances system with divided government, where the Congress could say, “Our president has gone too far and we do not consent to what you are doing, especially since your actions are so thoroughly and routinely unconstitutional.” The citizens have elected a Senate to create that balance for this man who is off the chain.<\/p>\n

RUSH: True, although just as a little side note, the Senate was not originally elected by the people. They were appointed. But you\u2019re right. That evolved and changed over time. But again, I\u2019m not trying to be pessimistic. Separation of powers and all that? You think it matters to Obama? This my point, folks. None of that matters. Separation of powers? You heard of executive orders? Executive actions? None of that matters. Now, he\u2019s… (interruption) Well, Snerdley says, “The most he could do is a recess appointment and they\u2019ll be gone when he is.”<\/p>\n

He could do a recess appointment, but he\u2019s said that he will not do a recess appointment. I don\u2019t think he\u2019s gonna try. Let me tell you something, folks. Everybody is worried about down the road later in the year with a presidential campaign or near the end of Obama this year. The recess appointment, that\u2019s not the worry. The worry is right now, folks. I\u2019m telling you, the concern is right now. That\u2019s what I\u2019m worried about. I\u2019m not concerned what happens with a recess appointment down the road. We got… <\/p>\n

We can\u2019t put this off, can\u2019t think that this is gonna be automatically backstopped successfully. I\u2019m worried about what they\u2019re plotting right now. And all of the… Look, I\u2019ve got the stories like everybody else has. For example, right there: “Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, Voted Against Roberts.<\/a>” We\u2019ve got the audio sound bite of Senator Chuck Schumer and the story where he himself, back in 2007, said that George Bush should not have the right to nominate justices to the court in the last year of his presidential term. <\/line><\/p>\n

And people said, “See, see? They\u2019re hypocrites. They\u2019re hypocrites!” Has that ever stopped \u2019em? Has that charge, the successful charge of hypocrisy ever changed one Democrat vote? Has anybody who ever supported Bill Clinton dropped Bill or Hillary Clinton because you pointed out how hypocritical the Clintons are? It doesn\u2019t happen. It doesn\u2019t work. It\u2019s interesting and it may have some value, but it\u2019s not gonna change the way Obama goes about this.<\/p>\n

Pointing out what Chuck Schumer said back in 2007 and saying that the Democrats, to be consistent, ought to be saying that Obama shouldn\u2019t be appointing justices? Are you kidding me? These are the people that blew up Senate and the filibuster in order to pack the DC circuit. They blew up years and years of Senate rules to get what they want. You think a charge of hypocrisy where everybody in the nation knows about it is gonna stop \u2019em? It never has. <\/p>\n