RUSH: Speaking of the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts, we’ve got some more great sound bites coming up. But I also like seeing this. This is by Alexander Bolton today from The Hill, the newspaper for and about the US Congress. “Conservative strategists are drafting a letter to Democratic members of the Senate judiciary committee demanding the release of hundreds of internal memos detailing contacts between the Democrat lawmakers and liberal interest groups opposing John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. By planning to press the Democrats on this sensitive subject, conservatives seem to be pulling a page from the Democrats’ own political playbook. In the weeks leading up to the confirmation hearings, the Senate Democrats have repeatedly called on the White House to give them memos that Roberts wrote while he was deputy solicitor general in President George H. W. Bush’s administration. Senator Pat [Leaky] Leahy,” Senator Depends, “the ranking member on the judiciary committee,” That means he’s the Democrat, “raised the issue again yesterday by releasing a letter dated September 9th from William Moschella, an assistant attorney general. In the letter, Moschella declined to disclose legal memos from Roberts’ tenure in the office of the solicitor general.” Now, what’s being sought here? “Conservatives want access to what they estimate may be as many as 4,000 Democratic memos that are in Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickles’ possession. Last year, Pickles seized Senate judiciary committee computers during an investigation. Democrats on the committee called for the probe after internal memos written by aides to Senator Kennedy and Senator Durban were made available to the press without Kennedy or Durban’s consent.
“In their letter to Democrats, conservatives plan to argue that the memos are not protected by attorney-client privilege, giving them stronger claims to the documents they assert than the Democrats have to the solicitor general’s documents. Roberts’ defenders have argued that a solicitor general’s relationship to a president is akin to an attorney-client relationship and deserves special privilege.” The solicitor general, by the way, that’s the person that actually represents the United States in cases before the US Supreme Court hence the designation of attorney-client privilege. But I think this is fabulous. Let’s see these memos! I mean, Democrats run around all over the place demanding this document and that document and these documents. Let’s see the documents they’re using. Let’s see what Ralph Neas and the boys are threatening them with. Let’s see what the ACLU is threatening them with. Let’s see what NARAL and Nan Aron and all these other wacko groups on the left are threatening them with. I know these groups’ memos have been used. I mean, through much of Senator Kennedy’s questioning, he was reading talking points no doubt provided with these groups, or asking questions no doubt provided by these groups. In fact, I’ve got a sound bite here that will illustrate for you how they screwed their own friend, how they screwed Senator Kennedy. I’m going to interpret it that way. It could well be that Senator Kennedy himself was trying to do the screwing, but based on what I’ve seen up to this time, it seems that, “You know, one thing John…?”
Change of direction here just to make a point. One of the things I haven’t seen that I would have loved to have seen, because it would have proven the point, Kennedy asks one of these five- or six-minute questions, and I would love to hear Roberts say, “Senator, I’m not quite sure I get that. Could you go back and look and see if blah, blah,” and make Kennedy go off his script, and you would see
ROBERTS: Well, Senator you do have to read the memo, I think, in its entirety to put it in context. That was not
RUSH: All right, so what do we have here? We have Ted Kennedy who presents an entirely false picture, a false premise, half of a memo, and Roberts corrects Kennedy four times in this answer. He corrects him four times. “If you were to read the whole memo, you would find that I didn’t say it; a client of mine said it. If you read the whole story…” What did you also not hear in the Roberts answer? What did you not hear? Come on, somebody tell me. What did you not hear? You didn’t hear Kennedy try to interrupt! You didn’t hear Kennedy try to stonewall this, because Kennedy doesn’t know what he’s even asking about is my theory. My theory is that he got set up by a Ralph Neas type. “We’re going to nail this guy! We’re going to nail this guy. We’re going to say that he says the EEOC is un-American,” because their template is this guy doesn’t care about equal rights. “He’s un-American. He said it about the EEOC! You ask him, senator!”
So Senator Kennedy says, (impression) “Err-uh, yeah, that’s right! We’ll nail this SOB,” and Kennedy is left there hanging out to dry, literally hanging out to dry. Roberts has no notes in front of him during this answer. Kennedy does not ask for any further notes; it just is what you heard. So the question is, did Kennedy pull a fast one, or was a fast one pulled on Ted Kennedy? If Kennedy were informed and could have interrupted and tried to stem the damage that was happening here, he would have, but he was lost. He didn’t even know what he was asking about. Dianne Feinstein did the same thing the other day.
“You really think that more women need to be homemakers?”
“No, Senator, it’s a joke from Shakespeare about lawyers,” and so forth.
Now, “Turban” followed with the same question that Kennedy had asked
RUSH: All right, we just heard the answer from Judge Roberts. “Senator Kennedy, if you read the whole memo, you’ll find out it wasn’t I who said the EEOC is un-American; it said the client who won the case said the EEOC was un-American.” So Kennedy says, “Well, as you know, this memo has been redacted, and I think, in fairness, in fairness to the committee, if we can get out the other redactions, it’ll be a more accurate kind of a complete record,” and then Specter says, “Well, if it’s possible for Judge Roberts to deal with the redactions…”
ROBERTS: I think the redactions simply identified the individual that was making the complaint who had his case. The only thing I would emphasize is that the language that was quoted was part of a sentence, and the question of what “the truth of the matter” is referring to goes to the first part of the sentence that was not read, which is the assertion, the assertion that the president promised to abolish the EEOC. That was the matter that I could not determine in the time available whether that was correct or not, so I said, “The truth of that matter notwithstanding…” and I’d also emphasize that any reference to the phrase “un-American” is always in quotes to make it clear that that’s what the writer of the letter said, and certainly not what I said, and it was certainly not my view then or now.
RUSH: So it’s patently obvious here that somebody is trying to trick the guy and they failed big time. Now, I just don’t know don’t know if Senator Kennedy is the architect of the trick or he’s one of the victims. (interruption) You think he’s the architect? I think he’s duped. I think that he’s relying on these left-wing groups and his staff to put this stuff together because they think, you know, “Roberts, he’s just a meathead conservative. Hell, it’s going to be easy to wipe the floor with this guy,” and the whole premise of the question is flawed; the facts in the question are incorrect. They’re wrong, and so Kennedy’s floundering. “Well, the memo is redacted. I didn’t get to read the whole thing.” It’s only the client’s name that’s redacted, senator! So the Swimmer finally gives up in this next bite, but still thinks that Roberts thinks the EEOC is “un-American.” Arlen Specter said — and Specter is being nice here. Specter is saying: “Senator, you just got the floor wiped with your rear end. Do you want to answer that?” That’s not what Specter actually said, but, “Senator Kennedy, really, this is over. You want to keep pursuing it?” Kennedy said (impression), “Yes, I want to! I want to keep talking!”
KENNEDY: Uh, I think we’ve been over the — after all is said and done about finding out what, uh, President Reagan wanted to abolish or not abolish. That really wasn’t the, uh, the issue or question. And the question isn’t about whether the, uhhh, use of the “un-American” is obviously unacceptable. I mean (gasp) and they’re dismissing that. But the, uh, Judge Roberts said the assertion the EEOC is un-American, uh, quote, and he’s quite rate, saying that they were dismissing that word, but then he adds, “the truth of the matter notwithstanding.” I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that he somehow was disparaging the EEOC. That’s all.
RUSH: See, Senator Kennedy, he doesn’t even know how badly he has just been embarrassed! He literally doesn’t know it because the talking point on part of that question was “Roberts says ‘EEOC un-American,'” and so that’s the point he’s going to try to make, “The truth be damned! It doesn’t matter. Roberts thinks EEOC is un-American. Roberts is conservative. Roberts hates civil rights! Roberts is unfair to the little guy!” That’s the whole guiding light here for all of these guys, and particularly this question from Senator Kennedy. Jeff Sessions from Alabama then sums up this whole EEOC dust-up and slams the Democrats in the process.
SESSIONS: Judge Roberts, I commend you on your good humor, and even when they read a memo suggesting you said the EEOC was un-American when actually all you were doing was quoting a complaint and that you defended the EEOC and its rights, and defended it aggressively in that memo.
RUSH: So the die is cast here. These guys are just flailing away, and they’re not even making contact. It’s literally embarrassing these people. Steven in Rayford, North Carolina. I’m glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Rural letter carrier dittos to you. I’ve really enjoyed listening to the senator, listening to this whole process. But do you think that the Democratic senators who have been beaten by the ugly stick so badly by Mr. Roberts, will they be more prepared to come back the next time around, more vicious in their attacks?
RUSH: No question. You see, here’s what this sets up. I’m glad you called because this is an excellent question. This sets up a couple of possibilities. If the next nominee is able to replicate Roberts’ answers here, it doesn’t matter what the Democrats do. They’re going to be flummoxed. If the next nominee, whoever he or she is, is able to. I don’t mean replicate word-for-word, but replicate the style of the answers here. It’s going to be tough to find somebody this smart, but incident they’re out there. I bet they’re all over the place, these conservative jurists, Scalia, these people. They’re not rare. You can find them. But here’s the difference, and we gotta be honest about this. Roberts does not have a huge, long paper trail. He does have 50 opinions. He does have 50 opinions that he’s written, but he has not written them, say, in the style that a Robert Bork did. So he didn’t present much of a target. The next nominee, we don’t know who it is, but if the next nominee has a much larger paper trail, has written many more opinions, and has been very forthcoming in these opinions, then that nominee will become a bigger target, and the Democrats will zero in even more. But I think the basic answer to your question is.