RUSH: A very curious Supreme Court decision today. ‘The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered sexually dangerous after their prison terms are complete.’ This is a 7-2 decision. The two dissents are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Now, this decision ‘reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of [those] considered ‘sexually dangerous.” Now, I don’t understand. Somebody is going to have to help me understand here why the court says — the states could do this, by the way — the federal government can detain dangerous sex offenders after their sentences are complete. If a sex offender can be kept presumably indefinitely, why not a terrorist? The left is making every move it can to get terrorists sent out of Gitmo.
They don’t want ’em held. They don’t want ’em held indefinitely, they don’t want ’em held, period. They want to close Guantanamo Bay and send ’em back to their home countries. In some cases their home countries do not want them. So now admittedly we’re just in the first day of this decision and I haven’t had a lot of chance to research this, but it used to be the rule that when we were following the Geneva Accords and past US practices, prisoners of war are held until the end of hostilities — and they don’t get lawyers and due process and trials in civilian courts. Terrorists, of course, are accorded little protection under the Geneva Accords, but we are treating terrorists with more leniency than sex offenders in this country! Somebody is going to have to explain to me how you can hold somebody beyond their sentence when they completed their term just because they’re dangerous sexually.
RUSH: Larry in Keith, Ohio. You’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.
CALLER: Hi! Dittos, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: And bravo to Jan Brewer.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Hey, question on this sexual predator reversal or whatever the Supreme Court supposedly done: Doesn’t that open a gate to other unlikables, unwantable, undesirables like computer hackers?
RUSH: That’s why I say, I have not read the law and I haven’t had a chance to read the decision at great length. But it is puzzling how you can single out one group, people who have served their sentences who are considered ‘sexually dangerous.’ You can hold them beyond the service of their term, but nobody else, including terrorists.
CALLER: Well, is this the Supreme Court’s way of apologizing to society for their length of endearment?
RUSH: I have no idea. It’s a 7-2 vote, and as I say, I’ve gotta spend some time reading it. It just came out this morning, I was in a show prep crunch — and as always is the case with Supreme Court decisions there’s much more to it than just the four or five paragraphs we get when something is reported. I do know that this was overturning a state ruling. The states can do this now. The states have the right to keep citizens, prisoners beyond the service of their term for whatever reason. This allows the federal government to do it, only in cases of people who are deemed to be dangerous in a sexual way. I, just off the top of my head when I read this, don’t know why only that group of people is deemed to be so dangerous that they can be held after they have served their terms, whereas with terrorists we’re trying to release them or give them trials. We’re trying to release them and sometimes their home countries don’t even want them back. So there does seem to be some confusion, but it’s 7-2, and we only had two dissents. It was Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
RUSH: Okay, here’s a little bit more on the Supreme Court sex case today, holding people beyond the length of their prison sentences. The majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, who is a huge proponent of following international law. And the majority opinion written by Breyer argued the federal civil commitment law to Congress, long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody if they might prove dangerous, whether sexually or otherwise. So apparently at the root of the ruling, according to Stephen Breyer, is that holding a prisoner in jail is the same as requiring him to get psychiatric treatment, that we’re doing it for their own good, that they’re nuts, that somebody who is dangerous sexually, obviously Looney Toons, and we’re going to keep ’em there under the guise of helping them, psychiatric treatment. Justice Thomas wrote, ‘Congress’ power, however, is fixed by the Constitution. It does not expand merely to suit the states’ policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds.’ Now, we’ve often heard the left describe various Supreme Court decisions they disagree with, ‘Well, you know, we’re heading down a slippery slope now.’ And this could be a slippery slope. I mean if they want to say they can hold sexual offenders, sexual predators who are still dangerous because they still need psychiatric treatment, who in this country does the left think does not need psychiatric treatment? Chilling, chilling ruling here today, if you ask me.
RUSH: You know, back to this predator decision, gonna keep sexual predators, dangerous people after they have completed their sentences, isn’t it peculiar that the states are trying to hold onto these sexual predators past their terms and are letting violent criminals go free? They’re not just terrorists. They’re closing down prisons in places because we don’t have the money. Is all this because of budget constraints?
RUSH: Larry in Moore, Oklahoma, great to have you on the EIB Network, sir.
CALLER: Thank you very much. I’d like to address the Supreme Court ruling you were talking about earlier.
CALLER: Regarding continued detention.
CALLER: Aren’t they in effect just holding persons beyond their legal obligation, their time served because of their sexual orientation? I mean you serve your time but we’re not going to let you go, we’re going to keep you for treatment until we get your mind right?
RUSH: What do you mean sexual orientation?
CALLER: Well, I mean it’s a fundamental rule of liberalism that people are not responsible for their behaviors if they’re born that way or if they’re brought up a certain way or they’re just — you can’t impose your values on —
RUSH: Yeah, but I don’t think this applies to just any kind of sexual orientation. I think it’s anybody who’s considered dangerous sexually, and if you read the ruling, it is precisely to keep them there to give them further psychiatric treatment, if it’s judged they need it even after their terms are complete. That’s as I understand it sitting here now.
CALLER: Yeah, well, I can see that. I’m using absurdity to illustrate the absurd, but it’s kind of like tantamount to creating a reeducation camp. We can’t hold Islamic fascists because of their potential behaviors, but we can hold, you know, someone else because of their personal private behavior, and that’s, you know, a war cry of liberalism that that’s a personal choice.
RUSH: Well, you know, Snerdley came into my office this morning — well, my office is my studio — he came in here, and he said, ‘How can this happen? I don’t understand, how can they –‘ I said, ‘What was the decision? What was the vote?’ So we started looking through the story and I thought at first it was a 5-4 decision, then I learned it was 7-2, and then it all became clear. (interruption) Did I not make it clear to you? You still don’t understand it? You have to understand. Sex, feminism, all this is a political thing. Sexual deviants, as far as the left are concerned, are largely men. They are predators. They abuse daughters and their wives, remember all these silly statistics about wife abuse, spousal abuse on Super Bowl Sunday because Dad got ticked off his team was losing, so he beats up mom, and we found out all that was a crock of BS. For every one of these cultural news items, cultural issues, there is a left-wing template, a prejudice.
It’s just like the experiment we did moments ago with NBC News and real news. NBC News is you have a panel discussion on Obama’s popularity and how will that help Democrats get reelected in 2010, or Eric Holder’s gonna maybe step in on the Arizona law. The real news is Obama has no popularity, and he’s losing states where he goes in and campaign for Democrats. The real news is that Obama’s attorney general has not read the Arizona law. Well, in this case, the assumption is — I don’t think this has anything to do with homosexuality, frankly, the exact opposite of that. I think this has to do with a template or a bias or a prejudice or whatever that feminism has inculcated into the minds of liberals that most men are predators and they might not even be fixable. They might not even be correctable. You used the terrorist analogy. Well, all we have to do is examine what the left says. The left is going out of its way to apologize for our treatment of Muslim terrorists, what’s-his-face, Holder, will not even use the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ or radicalism. So we have to be careful we don’t make those people mad, offend those people for whatever reason but, you know, sexual predators, scourge, we gotta get rid of them. So if you look at the traditional liberal bias and bigotry on any issue, you’ll find out why they do the things that they do.