Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Maybe I should say here, ladies and gentlemen, for the first day, for the first time in my life I’m proud to be an American. No, no, no, just kidding. But Sonia Sotomayor is a great story. It’s a great story. Greetings to you music lovers, thrill-seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plain. Time for broadcast excellence hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh, the former titular head of the Republican Party. Telephone number, 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Just moments ago, prior to the start of today’s program, my trusted aide-de-camp and chief of staff, H.R. Carson, sends me a note saying that he had just gotten off the phone with the Associated Press. The Associated Press asked if they could roll tape on my comments regarding Sonia Sotomayor nominated to the Supreme Court today by President Obama. The guy on the phone from the AP said to H.R, ‘Look, I know that Rush passed the leadership baton the Republican Party to Secretary Powell, but Rush is still the most influential voice out there for Republicans.’ So H.R. said, ‘Should I grant them permission?’ ‘Yeah, we can’t stop ’em rolling tape on what I say, feel free.’

Ladies and gentlemen, her story is very inspirational. The personal story of Sonia Sotomayor, where she came from and where she has now arrived, you can’t deny that this is a tremendous story, very inspirational for practically everybody. But the thing I’d like to point out is that she accomplished all of this during the Reagan years. She accomplished all of this during the Bush years, both Bush presidential years, 12 years, and even the Clinton years. She accomplished all of this before President Obama, The Messiah, was elected president of the United States. Now, this morning Mr. Snerdley came to me breathlessly looking for guidance, as I’m sure many of you are, too. ‘Do you think we should go to the mat stopping Sotomayor? Do you think we ought to go to the wall to oppose her?’ And I said, ‘Absolutely we should, once again an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama.’

I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped. She should be. She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court. She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she’s overturned. She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided. Details on that coming up. But here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.

He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn’t true, that she’s a great constitutionalist; that she doesn’t use personal opinion; that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice. She has done just the opposite of that. She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. She’s even admitted it. Grab sound bite number one. This is 2005 in Durham, North Carolina, at Duke, the School of Law there during a panel discussion about the court of appeals. This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor had to say.

SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know. (laughing)

RUSH: Well, there you have it. She makes light of it and makes jokes about what she determines her purpose to be. She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is; what he really believes in. And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having. She stands for policy making. Her defenders have said two things that are incompatible. I’ve been watching TV this morning and her defenders have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. ‘No, she doesn’t believe in policy making from the bench. Her words were taken out of context.’ You just heard her words. Listen to it again. Here’s audio sound bite number one. We got liberal defenders on TV this morning saying, ‘No, no, no, she’s been taken out of context there, she doesn’t believe in policy making.’

SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know. (laughing)

RUSH: She’s just telling her audience what they want to believe. I mean, the audience is laughing because she let the cat out of the bag, but they know nothing is going to come of it because she’s just being honest. She’s being honest, nothing out of context here whatsoever. So her liberal defenders on TV today have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. They said that she’s been taken out of context, she does not believe in policy making, and they’re also saying that every justice in every decision is about policy making. I’ve watched it all this morning. The defenders of Sonia Sotomayor have come out all over the ballpark, from all over the place, and they’re contradicting themselves. This is why this is actually a good choice. I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the court.

Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah. AP, you getting this? He’s gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country. Now, I also want to talk about what I think the Republicans are going to do with this as opposed to what they should do, ’cause I think those are two entirely different things. There’s a big source of controversy with Sonia Sotomayor and I don’t know if it’s going to be brought up. Somebody, I’m sure Jeff Sessions or somebody on our side, the Judiciary Committee, will bring it up, and one of the focal points is going to be her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut, firefighter case that is at present on appeal at the Supreme Court. The name of the case is Ricci v. DeStefano, and in this case Sonia Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotion to firefighters. She sided with them.

‘Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters’ crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion ‘contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case’ and its ‘perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.’ To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, ‘Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.’ Ironically, Sotomayor’s dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement.’

So it will be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does in this case where a liberal Democrat judge appointed by Clinton chastised her in writing. ‘In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their ‘experiences as women and people of color,’ which she believes should ‘affect our decisions.” Yet Obama is up there talking about how she’s superb at interpreting the law. She’s just said — and she said it numerous times — she is not about interpreting the law; she’s about making policy from an extreme radical left-wing position. Obama talks about we need people with empathy. It’s not even about empathy, folks, that’s just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.

She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, ”I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke,’ where you just heard the audio sound bite, the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one — you getting this, AP? — Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. A guy named Jeffrey Rosen, who is the legal affairs editor at the New Republic, a liberal journal of opinion, let me read what he writes about her.

‘Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions — fixing typos and the like — rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.’ So she’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be. She’s not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire, and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So, yes, there’s a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in, and this is how it can happen. Now, will the Republicans do it? That’s another question.


RUSH: Have you seen, and do you remember if you have seen it a picture of the lady holding the scales of justice? Do you know what’s remarkable about the lady in that rendering? She’s blindfolded. She doesn’t know whether the people before her… Justice does not know whether the people before it are black, white, Hispanic, male, female, rich, poor, Martian, or whatever. There is nothing about Sonia Sotomayor that is blindfolded where justice is concerned. This is a huge concern. Now, what are the Republicans going to do? I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the US Supreme Court. It’s a close second because he does have an anti-constitutional view.

If he gets her confirmed he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court. That’s what he wants. Forget this empathy stuff. That’s to get the squishies among us to think it’s okay. He wants an anti-constitutionalist out there. But this is also a huge wedge issue for Obama. This is a two-run homer. You might even call it a grand slam. She’s a what? A, a woman. B, what? A Hispanic. Boy. She’s a two-prong minority. I guarantee you that a majority of Republicans are going to be scared to death to oppose her or even say anything about her because the Dems are going to use race left and right. They use race nominating her. They use race and minority status nominating her (identity politics) and then they are going to use race, identity politics, minority status, feminism, to criticize me and any other Republican that dares oppose her.

So you’ve got a great wedge issue here for Obama in the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate now, are going to be in a huge box, a huge political box — and don’t forget, the Republicans are under the illusion that how they treat and react to Sotomayor will affect how they are able to get the Hispanic vote. Now, this is where the Republicans are really, really missing the boat. We tried this. Who did…? Every Bush Hispanic nominee who was male they set out to destroy. Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, the Democrats set out to destroy them. The Hispanic aspect is irrelevant except when they nominate one, particularly now a woman. So the Republicans are going to have to forget about this.

They have got a choice here, the purpose of which is to get an anti-constitutionalist on the court, and the second aspect of the choice is to shut them up, to cower them, to get them cowering in fear in the corners of the committee hearing room and saying nothing. Because Obama knows that the moderate Republicans who run the Republican Party, led by General Powell, are obsessed with not causing any waves, not making any waves. And they’re obsessed with this big tent, and they’re obsessed with inclusiveness (whatever the hell that means) and they’re obsessed with the Hispanic vote. So whether Rahm Emanuel picked it or whether one of the Clinton people nominated her is irrelevant. Obama’s got a twofer here.

And, look, as I say, the odds that she could be stopped are long. Perhaps the biggest pitfall she faces is her own confirmation hearings. She might slip up there and might say something that would give the opposition a home run. But even then they’re going to have to be willing to take advantage of it. By the way, do you know that Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito? Barack Obama opposed them both, and in both cases — of John Roberts, the current chief justice, and Samuel Alito — he said, ‘Oh, they’re perfectly qualified and they’ve both got perfect judicial temperament. But I’m going to vote against them,’ because to him it’s about ideology. It’s about liberalism. He thought these two guys were conservatives, and it didn’t matter to him what their judicial temperament or qualifications were. He voted against both of those.

So now he’s got a hack. He got a party hack that he’s put on the court that’s likely to be confirmed. This is where the so-called moderate Republicans are completely useless if you ask me. When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate Senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge? You see, folks, we are confronting a radical assault on this nation, a radical assault today on the US Supreme Court, and moderates in the Republican Party are distracting our ability to organize the opposition. You know why the Democrats don’t like me? You know why the Democrats don’t like me and the media doesn’t like me?

It’s precisely because I’m the one doing the heavy lifting against them. Me and my buddies on talk radio and their leaders. I’m the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans. The truth be told… Do you know where Colin Powell stands on a single issue? Do you know where Tom Ridge stands on a single issue? Neither one of those guys was asked where they stand on a single issue in their Sunday show interviews. So what we’re trying to do here is save the country, save our country from a party and an ideology that is systematically remaking it: the Democrat Party and liberalism. And if the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless. So this is where we are, and that’s what I had to say about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.


RUSH: One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: ‘The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored.’ Now, I say this again: ‘The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. ‘In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation,’ meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001. So there you have it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This