RUSH: Mr. Snerdley told me about this next story before the program started today, and he was just shaking his head in sort of mock outrage. “A group that won a Supreme Court victory allowing it to seize property for private development is telling some residents to vacate their homes, the latest flash point in a controversy that’s spread across the country. Representatives of the homeowners accused the quasi-public New London Development Corp. yesterday of reneging on a promise not to seize the properties while lawmakers considered changing the state’s eminent domain laws…. The notices order the property owners and tenants to vacate within 30 to 90 days and start paying rent to the development corporation during that period, according to the Institute for Justice… If residents do not comply, the agency has the option of pursuing an eviction in court.” So these homeowners already lost in court (story).

Now the new powers that be have come and basically said, “Either you’re paying us rent for the next 30 to 90 days or you’re getting out, and we want you out,” and the developers essentially said, if you want to boil this down, the big-money developers are telling the little guys, “Just get out! Just get out of this worthless rat trap you live in so we can bulldoze it and put up something of value here!” Now, of course, none of this would be possible were it not for the Supreme Court ruling, Kelo vs. New London, and of course the Supreme Court ruling featured five of the court’s liberals siding not with the developer. They sided with the government. They sided with any aspect of the case that would make government bigger. Government now gets to choose which property owner it wants to own various properties based on tax revenues and so forth.

Snerdley came in and said, “I can’t believe this.”

I said, “What do you expect? The case is over. These people won the case. What do you expect them to do? I know it appears heartless. It appears cold-hearted. It appears cruel, but all they’re doing is simply acting out, or implementing the law as handed down by the US Supreme Court. What are they supposed to do, sit there and wait forever for these people to leave?”

Now, folks, don’t misunderstand me. I think the whole thing is an absolute abomination. It is a joke. But, the court’s ruled, and we have so many people in this country who say, “The Supreme Court is the final authority, Supreme Court is the law of the land. We have precedent. Once they rule you can’t overturn it,” one of the big arguments in the Roberts hearings. Oh, can’t overturn it, eh? Well, Congress is working on doing just that. In fact, did you hear Roberts’ answer on this? He was asked about this this morning by Senator Brownback, and he didn’t take the bait on this question of passing judgment on the ruling. He just reviewed it for the senators and he told them why the majority came to the decision they did. But what he said was just brilliant, and it was so right on the money. He said, “Look, senator…” I’m going to do it in my voice.

He wasn’t talking this way. He said, “Look, the Supreme Court’s not the last law of the land here; you are. If you didn’t like a ruling, you can overturn it yourself by rewriting laws,” and he’s right on the money. These legislators and congressmen act like they’re innocent bystanders, act like they have no role in anything. So he told them, “Look, if you don’t like what the court did, and the court gave you leeway here; you know, we’re interpreting the law as it exists. You’ve got to change the law.” Well, I disagree with that, because I think the Fifth Amendment is very clear. The taking clause, the Fifth Amendment is very clear. I think one of the problems with an activist court is we’ve already got the law and it’s perfectly clear, and it’s been perfectly clear up until this ruling. So now we have to come up with a new law that basically rewrites the Fifth Amendment, which would make it redundant, which is gonna take a lot of time and a lot of money, and in the meantime a lot of people are going to lose their homes when it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

The document says what it says. So this question boils down to: Who do you want to be ruled by, nine lawyers or do you want to be ruled by your president who you elect and your members of Congress in the Senate, who you elect? So I mean Roberts’ answer was a great answer. “Hey, you guys don’t have to sit here on your hands. You have to change the law.” It’s silly that the law has to be changed. So I guess, yeah, what we have to do now is come up with a super-duper takings clause in the Fifth Amendment, have to come up with a “super-duper” Fifth Amendment, to use Arlen Specter lingo, to help define what the document already says. I mean, this is heap big trouble. We have the Constitution; now we’re going to have to pass laws that basically rewrite it so that we can all understand it or restate it just so everybody gets it. I mean, this is cockeyed.

But Roberts is not going to give his decision on this or any other case prior to himself getting on the court. He’s going to have to rule on this again at some point, and he also said something very clever. They asked him about this in regard to Justice Souter yesterday. He said, “I’m not going to comment on Justice Souter, because one of two things is going to happen when this is all over, senator. I’m either going to be one of his colleagues or he’s still going to be my boss. So I’m not going to comment on Justice Souter.” This guy is sharp as a tack — sharp as a tack, and he’s illustrating the Democrats are using a 30-year-old playbook. Well, the Bork playbook, and it’s just absolutely crazy. In fact, it’s so outdated, it’s obvious. These guys look like dinosaurs. They look like Jurassic Park has come to live here on the Senate judiciary committee.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One of the funniest things that happened yesterday — and I just found this stunning. Dianne Feinstein cannot be on the same planet as we are. It was clear to me what Senator Feinstein was doing was simply asking questions and reciting talking points to please the special interest groups that harass these Democrats, and she actually asked Roberts about this memo — we talked about this months ago — in which he said (summarized), “Oh, no, we’re going to take homemakers out of the home and make them lawyers? That’s what we need. Best we keep them in the home,” and she actually thought he was serious about opposing women’s liberation and women’s rights, and he said exactly what I thought was the case. “Senator, it’s a joke that goes back to Shakespeare. The last thing we need is more lawyers,” and then he said, “Look at my life and look at my wife.

You can’t find any evidence of this.” He didn’t say it the way I’m saying it. He was never on the defensive. He’s totally dominating these people. As Dana Milbank writes: “He was sharp-tongued. When Leahy made a skeptical query about one of Roberts’ Reagan administration memos, Roberts said, ‘Senator, you’re vastly over-reading the memorandum.’ When Biden fired off a series of questions without allowing Roberts to answer, Roberts said, ‘Well, I was about to lay that out but you said you didn’t want to hear about it.’

“The room filled with laughter. Biden did not smile, and Roberts showed flashes of wit. Asked about an old memo he wrote supporting judicial term limits, he admitted, ‘You know, that would be one of those memos that I no longer agree with, senator. I didn’t fully appreciate what was involved in the confirmation process when I wrote that.’ Everybody laughed.” He just totally disarmed them. I told you the other day that some of these liberal groups are trying to find evidence that this guy is gay and they’re pointing to his bald spot, and they’re looking at his bald spot? I kid you not. If you read the right things on the Web, you’ll find that some people say, “Nah, he can’t be gay because if he was gay he would have covered up the bald spot. He’d have enough vanity to cover up the bald spot. Gay guys don’t want to go out with bald spots.

It’s tough enough out there as it is.” Well, lo and behold, here the Washington Post, Dana Milbank, “Sitting at a folding table dressed with red felt, Roberts, his bald spot exposed under the studio lights…” How many times have you heard a nominee’s physical characteristics described this way? “John Bolton, his evil mustache twitching, with the remnants of his morning coffee.” Even in the piece that attempts to be complimentary of Roberts, they have to — the bald spot? I told you. You think that bald spot just came out from Dana Milbank’s observation? I will guarantee you, folks, that there is a source on that bald spot remark. Sheez, oh, man.