RUSH: Here’s John in St. Louis. Hello, sir, nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, great to be with you. Mega dittos from St. Louis, Missouri.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Got a question. I’m reading something off the web here from the Family Research Council that says after the Senate gets done questioning John Roberts, testimony begins from panels of outside supporters of the nominee and opponents like Planned Parenthood. I thought this was advice and consent of the Senate, not of outside interest groups.
RUSH: Well, this is common, though. This has been going on for the for as long as I’ve been watching these things. I don’t know when this bringing in the ABA, American Bar Association, and the special interest groups started, but it’s been going on as long as I’ve been observing, and it’s pretty much common practice. Now, it’s not going to go on very long. The ABA which is traditionally on the side of Democrats, gives this guy its highest rating, and the Planned Parenthood, I’ll tell you what, as far as I’m concerned let them come in there, John, because these groups, if they’re the architects of this pitiful performance of the Democrats, it will be obvious to everybody. Let them come in and use their hate, let them come in and use their lies, let them come in and try to portray this guy, you know, we’re a nation of pictures, and you can say this guy hates blacks, you can say he hates women, you can say he hates civil rights but there has not been one shred of evidence put forth. All it is, is allegations. That’s all the left generally has, allegations, seriousness of the charge. We have some more audio sound bites here, and just to show you how deep that they’re reaching, in this next question — this is from this morning — Senator Dianne Feinstein actually tried to link John Roberts to the Contras. Here’s the question.
DIFI: Let me go back into your past. In trying to get Senate documents, one of the documents withheld was a draft memo titled, “Establishment of NHAQ,” the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office. This office was used by President Reagan to give aid to the Nicaraguan Contras following the passage of the Boland amendment, and that was a prohibition on providing funding to the Contras. What involvement did you have with the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office?
RUSH: (Laughing.) Can I rephrase the question for you? “How much money did you send to the Contras in violation of an act of Congress?” Here we go, folks. This is a question that you just laugh at. Here’s Roberts’ answer to it.
ROBERTS: I’m not familiar with the memorandum. If it was withheld, it was probably withheld from me as well, and I don’t recall any involvement.
ROBERTS: So I don’t recall any —
ROBERTS: I do know that there was an issue —
DIFI: Fair enough.
ROBERTS: the issue —
RUSH: Stop the tape. I think she’s just read a question given to her by some group and she realizes how silly and stupid the question is, and she wants him to stop. “Okay, okay, okay!” That’s her in the background. “Okay, okay.” She doesn’t want this embarrassment to continue anymore, but he keeps going.
ROBERTS: — memorandum that I know have been released by private fund-raising activities and I do know that I gave advice in order to make sure that they didn’t engage in lobbying activities in order to be consistent with the Boland amendment. I’ve seen those, but beyond that I’m not recalling anything.
RUSH: So that’s what she didn’t want him to say. What involvement did you have with the Contras? “I advised them that they got to obey the Boland amendment. That’s what I advised, but I haven’t seen the memo either, senator.” Here’s a perfect example of his answers all week. He just decimates the next question here and doesn’t really say anything in his answer but he just decimates the question. Senator Feinstein says, “Let me ask you a general question, then. If an executive exercises power in direct violation of an act of Congress, is such an act unconstitutional?”
ROBERTS: Well, the answer depends, senator, and this is where you get back to the Youngstown analysis, where Justice Jackson said there are three categories. You can act with Congress’ support, being unclear what Congress’ position is, and he recognized a third category where you can act, the executive may act in the face of a congressional prohibition, and there are certain areas where the executive does have authority to the exclusion of Congress, you know, without stating a legal view, for example, one that law professors regularly talk about is the pardon power. In other words, that’s given expressly to the president under the Constitution, and restrictions, if Congress were to pass a restriction on the pardon power, does the president nonetheless have the authority to act under the Constitution, that’s a difficult question. But it may be that the president’s authority would trump Congress’ authority. So I can’t answer a question in the abstract without knowing exactly what the record is and what the situation is.
RUSH: So what you have here in this case is just a question of utter imbecility. It’s a simplistic question because to the Democrats, everything is adversarial. “So if an executive exercises power in direct violation of an act of Congress, is such an act unconstitutional?” And they’re hoping and praying, “Absolutely it is.” “Well then…” and I’m sure there’s a talking point follow up. But she never got there because without knowing particulars, it’s not that easy to say. So it’s just been fun to watch. It’s been an education to watch this, and it has been very illuminating and heartening to me because the illumination has been more and more on just who the left is and just what their tactics are and just how they lack substance. They’re empty. One more. One more sound bite, and this is simply a little bit of the closing remarks from Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer starts out praising Roberts’ intellects and then lists one of his cons, and you will hear Schumer say that Roberts lacks compassion because he used the word amigo in the 1980s.
SCHUMER: First is the question of compassion and humanity. I said on the first days of these hearings it’s important to determine not just the quality of your mind, but the fullness of your heart, which to I think a good number of us at least on both sides of the aisle, really, mean the ability to truly empathize with those who are less fortunate and who often need the protections of the government and the assistance of the law to have any chance at all. It didn’t seem much, for instance, to concede that the wording, “illegal amigos” was unfortunate. Yet you refused to say so. America has moved in the 21st Century beyond what Senator Kennedy called the cramped view of civil rights professed in the early Reagan administration. But you wouldn’t admit now, in 2005, that any of those views you argued for in the early eighties were misguided, with the hindsight of history. That’s troubling.
RUSH: So this prompted “Vice President” Lindsey Graham to say, “You know, I don’t like this direction at all. We’re supposed to examine these nominees’ hearts? Let me tell you a story. We’re all lawyers up here, and I’ve been a lawyer, and I’ve had to defend some really mean people, some people that were not very nice. I had to defend a client on a military base once, and this man was so despised and so hated that nobody on the base would eat with me, but I had to defend him. I had to, because it was my job. You going to tell me I did not have a heart because I chose to defend this guy? We can’t measure anybody’s heart. We can’t. How are we going to do this?” But, see, when you go back to what Schumer says here. In fact, I want to play cut two, because this is a great way to answer another question he got from Senator Durbin. Here Schumer says, “You know, a good number of us, at least on both sides of the aisle, really mean the ability to truly empathize with those who are less fortunate, and who often need the protections of government and the assistance of the law to have any chance at all. He’s saying here, “You going to be sensitive to these illegal amigos that you talked about in the eighties? Are you going to be sensitive to the downtrodden and the disadvantaged and are you going to use the law to help prop these people up?” Now, Roberts had already answered that earlier this morning, and here it is again for you.
ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, “You know, are you going to be on the side of the little guy.” Now, you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I’ll look out for particular interests; I’ll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that’s what I would do.
RUSH: Now, here’s the proper way to interpret this. Liberals think you are an activist if you are going to vote to uphold the Constitution. They consider the Constitution to be out of the mainstream, essentially. The Constitution is conservative. The originalist view of the Constitution, meaning find the original intent, that doesn’t serve liberals. You can only use the courts to prop up the downtrodden if the ignore the Constitution. Everybody is equal before the law, theoretically. Everybody is equal before the law, but not with liberals. With liberals, the disadvantaged get five or six bonus points simply because they’re disadvantaged, and here’s Roberts saying, “Hey, if the law says the big guy wins, the big guy is going to win with me,” and I tell you that would send ice to these liberals’ hearts. That’s like freeze drying them. They cannot deal with that kind of truth but there was no rebuttal to this, because how do you take on somebody who actually says very proudly and pointedly, “That’s the oath. I’m here to defend the Constitution.” Can a liberal come out and openly say, “No, you’re not! That’s not what you’re to do. You are to go in there and you are to write law if necessary from the bench in order to make things fair and just as we liberals define it.” This is another example why they can’t be honest about what they really want to do or who they really are on a campaign platform or anything else because it would just go down the tubes faster than they’re already going down the tubes as it is.
RUSH: You know these hearings, now that Roberts’ testimony is over, he’s finished, here you have Schumer raising questions about Roberts’ heart, and when you get right down to it, folks, these hearings are not about whether John Roberts has a heart or not. It really is more about whether or not the Democrats have any brains. I mean, that’s the correct way to analyze this, but of course the media lost in the news cycle of the moment, will not be able to see any of this. They’re still stuck on, “How many votes is he going to get? Well, let’s see, which Democrats are going to vote for him?” They have no ability to look outside the cycle and see what all this means down the road. They’re just stuck — and that’s them daily, they’re stuck in the moment of the day. It has no context; it has no meaning, other than, “How will this hurt President Bush?” That is their sole focus, the sole bit of analysis. “Is this going to hurt President Bush? Will this destroy President Bush?” Well, Schumer doesn’t have any qualifications to analyze anybody’s heart, but he has qualifications to ask questions because he’s elected and he’s on the committee, and that’s all it takes. What qualifications does Kennedy have to talk to anybody about women’s rights? Honestly. Seriously. Under what other system would Ted Kennedy be allowed to have moral superiority over anybody else on women’s rights? Well, his life doesn’t give him that. His election in Massachusetts and being on this committee is all he needs.