RUSH: All right, so Mr. Snerdley says, “Well, what are they going to say about Janice Rogers Brown?” If you want to know what
Now, stop and think of that statement. “We have an American judge hostile…” So we can’t attack the judiciary here, folks. “We can’t attack the judiciary,” the left said, “because it’s going to insight violence out there.” We can’t be critical! The judiciary’s independent. Well, let some judge that Ralph Neas doesn’t like get named and, bammo! Here comes a full-fledged attack on that judge, and nobody says a word. Just recently Hillary Clinton said that the Supreme Court had “installed Bush as president.” They continue to slam the Supreme Court over this decision, and yet we conservatives are said not to be respectful of justices and judges? If you really think the court installed a president, as you liberals say, then you’re accusing the court of a
So that’s what they’re saying about a black judge, Mr. Snerdley. “The report released today, ‘Loose Cannon’…” This was 2001, and I’m going back. This is August 28th of 2001 when she was first nominated. We’re coming up here on two years, year and a half for this woman, and I’m reading to you from People for the American Way on August 28th, 2003. “The report released today, ‘Loose Cannon,’ notes that when Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee,” and that’s a bunch of libs. “Brown?s many disturbing dissents, often not joined by a single other justice, make it clear that she would use the power of an appeals court seat to try to erect significant barriers for victims of discrimination to seek justice in the courts, and to push an agenda that would undermine privacy, equal protection under the law, environmental protection, and much more.” That’s what they’re saying about this woman, Mr. Snerdley. “In speeches, Brown has embraced the extreme states? rights and anti-federal-government positions of the Federalist Society, the organization of lawyers and judges working to push the law far to the right.” It’s not what they are. They’re a bunch of constitutionalists, and the left just looks at the Constitution as a far-right concept. They’re not trying to push the law in any direction. They’re trying to enforce it. “She has said that what she has called the revolution of 1937 when the Supreme Court began to consistently sustain New Deal legislation against legal attack was a disaster that marked the triumph of our socialist revolution.” Now, why did she say this? We’ve been talking about this for about six months. The left cannot win at the ballot box. The left cannot win elections. The left cannot get its agenda implemented democratically.
They do it via the courts. They do it via the government bureaucracy, the EPA on environmentalism and so forth. Essentially they’re trying to institutionalize what they believe, not make it subject to debate in the arena of ideas. When a court has the final say and pronounces a law that doesn’t exist a law or creates a right that consent exist, it’s institutionalized. There’s nothing we can do about it, i.e., abortion. Abortion has not become legal in this country because the people and their elected representatives decided it. Nine guys in robes did, and they forced it on everybody, and this is how the left wants to enforce every one of its beliefs: institutionally. So Janice Rogers Brown was simply saying in the revolution of 1937 when the Supreme Court began to consistently sustain New Deal legislation against legal attack. I mean, you couldn’t even criticize it; you couldn’t attack it. Institutionalizing socialism? It’s what the New Deal was, and because she had the audacity to be honest about it, the red flags went up and here come People for the American Way out to destroy her as somebody who essentially, if you read their piece, doesn’t even believe in law. So that’s one of the nominees being filibustered, Janice Rogers Brown, just one of the seven or ten or whatever it is.