RUSH: I mentioned in the last hour that the left is just unloading today on Judge John Roberts. Virtually every fringe lib group that you’ve heard of (and some that you haven’t heard of) are issuing press releases and faxes and the American media is dutifully bending over forwards and backwards to give them the credibility that none of them have earned and deserve. Making them all sound bigger and more powerful and relevant than they are. Before we get to details of that, there’s this today from the Los Angeles Times: “On High Court Vote, Centrist Democrats Caught in Middle.” Anybody tell me, Mr. Snerdley, what’s wrong with that headline? “On High Court Vote, Centrist Democrats Caught in Middle.” That’s exactly right. What “centrist” Democrat? Somebody name for me a centrist Democrat — and if you are a centrist, don’t you want to be in the middle? How in the world is it a bad thing if centrist Democrats are caught in the middle? Already we have found the major flaws in this story. The headline alone makes no sense. “Centrist Democrats Caught in the Middle.” Where else would you expect to find a centrist — if you can find one in the Democratic Party? It’s one of the biggest myths around. They’re all liberals! They all march in lockstep! They don’t deviate. There are no Hagels. There are no Susan Collinses. There are no Olympia Snowes. There are no McCains. There aren’t any Democrats that bolt from the leadership and go out as “mavericks.” You ever heard a Democrat called a maverick? They don’t bolt the leadership, head for the TV cameras and say things at odds and at variance with their leadership. What is this centrist Democrat BS? The story written by Maura Reynolds:
“The outcome appears all but certain, but the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court is still likely to be a nail-biter for the Senate’s centrist Democrats. On the one hand, they would like to reward President Bush for consulting with them in advance and picking a nominee who appears legally better qualified and ideologically more temperate than many had expected.” You know the dripping superior attitude in this just grates on me. You know, I get so sick and tired of a bunch of people who are on the fringe talking about somebody not being in the American mainstream. They wouldn’t know the American mainstream if they found themselves in the middle of the Mississippi River — and this sentence: “[T]hey would like to reward President Bush for consulting with them in advance and picking a nominee who appears legally better qualified and ideologically more temperate than many had expected.” Yeah, we thought we were going to get some Nazi-like wacko that wanted to send women back to the caves. Who are you people? What gives you the right to assume you represent the majority of thinking? You don’t even win elections anymore! You’re losing elections by ever larger margins. Your party is fracturing with this kook bunch anti-war crowd down there that should be embarrassing all of you and should be scaring the daylights out of you, in terms of your political fortunes and the reputation of your party at large. You know, isn’t it interesting, when Bill Clinton nominates a hard left ACLU lawyer like Ruth Ginsburg, we never hear about having to “examine this person’s views,” and having to “make sure that they’re in the mainstream of America.” We don’t do anything! We don’t have groups that come up. We don’t do anything like this when Clinton or the Democrats nominated judge.
When a Republican nominates a judge, “Why, we’ve got to start examining whether that judge is human! Does that judge even breathe air? Does that judge breathe oxygen?” The double standard here is striking, and it’s this arrogance and this superior attitude. I’m telling you, it grates on me. It just grates on me. The headline here bugs me, and the opening two sentences bug me. The third sentence or third paragraph of this piece is, “On the other hand, more than Roberts’ fate hangs in this balance. For many Senate Democrats the debate over Roberts is increasingly a battle over the nature and the direction of the court and the president’s efforts to narrow or overturn some of its controversial…” Yeah. How come we only hear about “drastic changes to the court” when a Republican nominates a judge, but we never, eeeeever hear about drastic changes in direction of the court when an ACLU lawyer like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a screaming leftist, is nominated? We never hear about that. Now, this is the next joke in this piece. “One of those [centrists] caught in the middle is California’s Dianne Feinstein, the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a speech Wednesday to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she said that her vote would take into account concerns about the direction of the court.” Well, now, see this is a big myth, too. They pump out Senator Feinstein as a “centrist” to create a reputation and an image for her but she’s just as liberal as any of these other people are. She’s just as liberal. I mean, the idea that Dianne Feinstein from San Francisco is somehow a centrist? That’s like saying Barbara Boxer is a centrist! Take a look at the votes; forget what they say. Yeah, they do have some people that go out there and speak moderately but take a look at the votes.
“Many Senate Democrats, especially those known as liberals, are expected to vote against Roberts to go on record against his political conservatism.” Especially those known as liberals…? Many say that Democrats…? Why do you need the modifier, “especially those known as liberals”? “Many Senate Democrats… Many Senate liberals… I mean, Democrat, liberal, it’s the same thing! “In her speech Feinstein emphasized the historic nature of the decision to confirm a Supreme Court justice who enjoys lifetime tenure.” You all know it’s all about abortion. All right, now, get this. This is the Washington Times today: “Liberals Expand Scope of Attack on Roberts — Liberals have broadened their attack on federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. beyond just his position on abortion to include accusations of a more general hostility toward women and privacy…. More alarming to [Ralph Neas, People for the American Way] is that Judge Roberts’ views ‘are sharply at odds with those of the justice he has been nominated to succeed, Sandra Day O’Connor.’ Broadly speaking, liberals say Judge Roberts wants to limit ‘reproductive freedom’ for women, undo women’s ‘right to privacy’ and discard remedies aimed at ‘gender equity,’ Neas said at the National Press Club,” and this, of course, carries forth another fallacy, which is the court has to be “balanced,” that even if you are a Republican president and a liberal judge retires, you’ve got to put a liberal judge on the court to keep the balance.
How come when a liberal president, a Democrat president, appoints judges to the court, nobody ever says, “You’ve got to maintain the balance”? Democrat presidents are always allowed, and in fact required, to shift the balance. Democrat presidents are supposed to make the court more leftist; they’re supposed to turn it left. Republican presidents supposed to maintain that leftist balance so that the liberals who cannot win elections to save their lives still get to control the court. The more I think about this, the more I think about it — and I’ve been thinking about it a lot — it just infuriates me, the arrogance and the condescension and the presumptuousness of a bunch of losers. Talk about imposing a way of life on people! Are you sick and tired like I am of having liberalism imposed on you everywhere you go, be it whatever name you give your college team, to what you can say wherever you go, to what you can do wherever you go? Frankly, I think the imposition of liberalism’s gone far enough and it’s time to roll it back — which is what this program’s been all about for over 17 years. So these guys, they’re worried about John Roberts. “He’s going to send women back to the Dark Ages!” It’s right out of the playbook, right out of the same old playbook, the same old page. They’ve got nothing new. They can’t find any dirt on this guy. “So let’s go to the themes that beat Bork, that almost beat Clarence Thomas. Let’s just keep regurgitating these themes,” and as they do they’re not winning any converts. You know, it’s said that the American people are getting fed up with hearing about Cindy Sheehan every day; they’re getting fed up hearing about Natalee Holloway every day; they’re even getting fed up hearing about the war every day. But you know what else they’re getting fed up with? They’re getting fed up with hearing about liberal Democrats and their problems every day, how unfair life is for them and how we ought to go out of our way to give them their power back. They’re fed up and there’s a big backlash going on in the mainstream for putting forth all these things. Mark my words, folks.
RUSH: Just to give you an idea, do you remember which justice of the US Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg was named to replace? You don’t? I will tell you. That was just Byron White. <a target=new href=”http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issues/issue_byronwhite.php”>Byron White</a> was strongly pro-life; he voted against Roe vs. Wade on the court; he was appointed by FDR. That’s how long ago he served, or how long ago he was nominated, but he voted against Roe vs. Wade. He was pro-life. That’s who Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced. There was no call for “balance.” There was no demand. The Republicans, nor the media, did not say to Bill Clinton, “Yeah, you better put a pro-lifer on there! We’ve got to protect the balance of the court.” There was no such thing. Only when Republicans make these nominations are these arrogant and superiorist claims and demands made. You know, for the longest time in my life, liberalism was dominant and conservatism was the stepchild — and there is a subtle shift taking place. Liberalism is no longer dominant in this country, not in electoral politics, not legislatively. It may be attitudinally on college campi and it may be dominant attitudinally in the anti-war movement and in shreds of the Democratic Party. Nationwide, go look at how people live their lives, and they don’t live their lives as liberals would have them live them. If they did, liberals would be winning elections, and they’re not. I’m talking about nationwide elections. They would have won the House of Representatives back and they would have never lost it. If the people of this country lived their lives as liberals demand they lead them then there wouldn’t even be a contest but that’s not the case. Liberalism is not the dominant way people live; it’s not the dominant way they think.
But the people that shape opinion in the mainstream press, it is the way they think, and so this superiorist, this-is-what’s-normal attitude is constantly broadcast. This is a long battle that’s been underway to change this and to reverse it, and it’s still underway. It’s still taking place. This is no time to go wobbly. More on the Supreme Court from the Washington Post: “Democrats Seeking Release of Withheld Roberts Documents.” Another story that says: Democrats believe Roberts will pass, but the liberal groups still want more dirt. “After the release of about 60,000 documents detailing the work of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., Democratic senators are setting their sights on what was not in the huge cache of papers: more than 2,100 memos and letters that have been withheld by government archivists working in concert with the Bush White House…. With Senate hearings two weeks away, Democrats privately say the documents that have come to light about Roberts’s White House work from 1981 through 1986 probably do not contain disclosures that would threaten his confirmation…” The utter audacity! The assumption that they would offends me! Hell’s bells, who do you people on the left think you are? You’ve got 60,000 pages of documents. You don’t have 2,100 pages. You know there’s something there are that will disqualify him? On the basis of what? The only way you can come up with a way to disqualify this guy is to say he’s conservative. Why don’t you just admit it? Why don’t you stop beating around the bush?
Why don’t you say, “We don’t like this guy. He’s a conservative and we don’t like conservatives, and we don’t like conservatism.” Just say that instead of running around and doing all this fan dancing about trying to find something that portrays this guy as some sort of Neanderthal. The reason they don’t do this is because they’d rather destroy the man. They’d rather destroy him with innuendo, because conservatism would not destroy him; conservatism is what has made him. His ideological and religious beliefs are what have made John Roberts. That’s who he is. That’s how he is defined – and that’s what they can’t stand — and make no mistake about this. The fact that he is Catholic is going to be subtly referenced time and again on this committee. They’ll never use that word, and they’ll never use the word religion, but they will talk about “deeply held personal beliefs,” or some such other phrase that will be a code. “Democrats privately say the documents that have come to light about Roberts probably don’t contain disclosures that would threaten his confirmation…” What kind of disclosures? What do you think is in there? “Some Democratic senators working with liberal special interest groups opposed to Roberts consider the other documents potentially relevant and are pressuring archivists in the White House to release them before the public hearings begin.” To get an accurate picture of this: imagine when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came up, imagine Republican senators working openly with Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association and Pat Robertson to try to find dirt to disqualify Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Can you imagine the outcry there would have been?
And I thought Pat Leahy said these special interest groups don’t matter a hill of beans, didn’t he? He said he wishes they’d shut up because whatever they say didn’t affect him one way or the other. I’ll bet he’s one of the people meeting with them. I’ll bet he’s one of the people taking their phone calls. I’ll bet he’s one of the people reading their e-mails. “Oh, no, no, no! These people don’t matter. Those interest groups, I wish they’d shut up.” You have a symbiotic relationship with those groups, the liberal Democrats do, and they are partners — and it’s the groups that do the dirty work for the senators. We’ve just only scratched the surface here, folks. Then we have this: “For Immediate Release: The Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,” one, two, three, four groups, “put out a united statement today to announce opposition to John Roberts. Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign says, ‘Judge Roberts has such a narrow view of what the courts can and should do, it’s a wonder he wants the job at all. Ultimately this is about an individual’s right to privacy, from women’s rights, to religious freedoms, to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality.;” There is no such evidence. If anybody is trying to go to stamp out religious rights, it’s you people — you and your pals at the ACLU. “‘For his entire adult life John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,’ said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ‘He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection and due process…'”
He’s been unanimously confirmed twice by the very people you prop up! He has been passed. He has been voted on. He has faced hearings twice. Not once did any of this ever come up. Of course the mainstream press will not tell you that. I’m not going to read you all the other joint statements from these groups, but here’s another one: “The New York City-based progressive organization New Democrat Majority joins growing list of progressives opposing Roberts’ nomination. New Democrat Majority joins People for the American Way and other progressive organizations across the country in opposing the nomination of John Roberts. Scott Powell, the executive director of the national New Democrat Majority said, ‘To give Bush a free pass on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court would fly in the face of America’s sentiment towards the president.’ Powell was citing a recent survey conducted by the American Research Group that indicated only 36% of Americans and 21% of independents approved of the way Bush is handling his job.” So nobody he nominates should go to the court because his approval numbers are not sufficient! Two more things. Teddy Kennedy… Let me find this very quickly. Ted Kennedy has brought back to the fold an old fighter that is designed to dig up dirt on Roberts. This guy has been gone from Kennedy’s side for a number of years. It’s a Robert Novak column, and I’m on the verge of finding it. I thought I’d picked everything out of this stack that I had, but I haven’t. Bear with me here, folks. There’s that one and one more. Yep. Here it is.
“An alert this week from backers of Judge John Roberts cautions not to take seriously Democratic complaints that they cannot stop his confirmation. A three-page memo sent to thousands of conservatives across the country warns that the assault on President Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee is yet to come. A major reason cited for this belief is the man back at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s side on the Senate Judiciary Committee: James Flug. ‘It is hard to fathom Mr. Flug coming back to Capitol Hill after 30 years of private practice for anything other than a bitterly tough confirmation fight,’ says the memo… That argument is based on Flug’s 38-year intermittent history as Teddy Kennedy’s gunslinger. Not contained in the memo is Flug’s clandestine activity since his return investigating at least one Bush judicial nominee, Appellate Judge William Pryor.” He was a stealth investigator digging up dirt on Bill Pryor. “The Kennedy-Flug partnership blocking confirmation of Republican judges dates back to the defeat of President Richard Nixon’s Supreme Court nominees G. Harrold Carswell and Clement F. Haynsworth. As Kennedy’s rhetoric intensifies, the atmosphere leading up to next month’s Roberts hearings feels like the eve of battle. I had known Flug while he was a Kennedy aide in the late 1960s and in Kennedy’s 1980 campaign for president. He returned my call last week, and I asked why Flug, now aged 66, would return to a job normally filled by somebody 30 years younger. When he learned what I was after, Flug broke off the conversation and said he would resume the next day if he could. He never did…. After my brief conversation with Flug, Kennedy’s press office said the aide was too busy to talk to me…. As to why he returned to Kennedy’s staff, the senator’s press aide referred me to a flattering profile of Flug in the Aug. 19, 2003, edition of The Hill newspaper.
“‘It was an extraordinary opportunity to maybe repeat history,’ Flug was quoted as saying.” Flug, you might remember, “hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to research [Mitt] Romney, an arrangement that was kept off official campaign reports and was at first denied by the Kennedy campaign.” So make no mistake: this is all a bunch of bogus BS that they’re standing aside thinking they can’t stop Roberts. They’re bringing back the big guns. Why does this matter? Just the latest example: From San Francisco: “A federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming. The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue. ‘This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to give a plaintiff standing, to open the courthouse door,’ said Ronald Shems, a Vermont attorney representing Friends of the Earth.” Exactly right. The bottom line is that there is no scientifically conclusive evidence of manmade global warming and yet a bunch of wacko groups have been given standing by this judge to sue. That’s why the judiciary is out of control, and that’s why nominations like John Roberts and all the other appellate judges that Bush has put forward are crucial. It is also why the left is in sheer panic and will stop at nothing to defeat every Bush nominee — and don’t for a minute believe they won’t bring back the filibuster. We keep a hearing the filibuster is dead because they’ve got 70 votes. Don’t believe that for a moment, folks. They will stop at nothing.