RUSH: Frank in Salt Lake City. You’re up first. Great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Very well, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Good. I’ve been listening to you since the mid-eighties when I used to take my kids fishing on the Sacramento River.
RUSH: Wow. Yeah, you are a lifer.
CALLER: Well, listen, here’s my comment. I believe that what Obama has done here is light the fuse to question the Constitution. He’s done it through the mechanism of going after the Supreme Court and questioning the Supreme Court’s authority on setting the law of the land. And I think whether or not his Obamacare gets approved or not, he’s already laying the groundwork for questioning the authority of the Supreme Court. And I think in the long run, he’s going after trying to undermine the Constitution. Now, last night. I take a couple of courses in computer programming at our community college. And our teacher didn’t show up. So a couple of the students left, but a lot of us sat around. We were talking about what Obama did yesterday. And a lot of these kids, bless their hearts, feel that there may be some movement going on here that may end up affecting their careers, and that is censorship of the Internet. And if the Constitution’s gonna be attacked, I think the freedom of speech is probably gonna be one of the first things to go. So I just wanted to share that with you because there was a consensus among kids that were a third of my age believing that what Obama’s doing is wrong.
RUSH: My hope, my sense is that that is a fairly sizeable majority of everybody in this country. We don’t see that reflected in media, of course, because the media’s not gonna find instances of this. They still want to portray the country as at least 50-50, or even sympathetically still pro-Obama ’cause he’s personally likable and popular and all that. Now, as to your notion of the attack here on the Constitution itself, I don’t doubt that that’s true. It’s been established by Obama himself and others that have attended same law schools that he has and have been influenced by the same scholars that the Constitution is a bad document.
They call it “a charter of negative liberties.” They don’t like it because it limits government. They think it’s flawed. They want a Constitution rewritten or amended that spells out what government can do, ’cause right now the Constitution is totally negative in terms of what government can do. It tells it what it can’t did but it doesn’t spell out what it can do, and that they don’t like. Now, as to your theory that Obama has “lit the fuse” to get people all fired up that the court itself is unconstitutional, or ought to be pared down in size. If that’s what he’s striving for, he got a column in The Daily Beast from a guy named Dow who said: If these justices overturn Obamacare, impeach ’em.
That’s the kind of stuff that he wanted and that’s the kind of stuff that he wants from these comments that he’s making about no court has ever overturned duly constituted laws and so forth, which is patently false and he knows it. But I wouldn’t throw out your theory in any way. If the law’s unfair, why should people obey it? If the law’s wrong…? Do you think if they overturn the mandate, if they strike it down…? Let’s say hypothetically they throw the whole thing out. What’s Obama gonna do? Do you think he’s just gonna say, “Oops! Well, we tried, and we lost, and the rules of the game are that we go back to the drawing board and try again”?
Do you think that’s what he’s gonna do? Of course not! He’s not gonna accept it. It’s gonna become a huge campaign issue, and he’s going to be running against the court, and the way that that might manifest itself, who knows? But it’s going to be brutal. You remember what the Clinton people did to Ken Starr, and that was not quite unprecedented. But in the modern era, when a special prosecutor is impaneled, it was the first time that the target attempted to win the case by going out and attacking the prosecutor — personally, every day, from every angle possible, with as many people in the administration doing it — to discredit the office of the special prosecutor and the special prosecutor himself.
And Ken Starr, God bless him, had no clue what to do. He had no clue! Nobody did. It never had been done before. Nobody knew how to deal with this. Everybody just sat around with their mouths open and said, “My God, do you believe this? I can’t believe this!” And that’s been about all that happened. And they at the present time tarring and feathering Starr. So that is a bit of an indication of what’s going to come. They’re not just gonna sit there and take this if they lose it. Obama might just say, “I’m not accepting it. You know what? I don’t accept this. We’re just gonna keep doing the law.” Just like the drilling moratorium. A judge shut ’em down and they said, “To heck with it!”
RUSH: Snerdley, have you ever heard of the concept of “critical legal studies”? My friends, have you ever heard of the concept of critical legal studies? Critical legal studies is taught at Harvard, and it basically argues that law is politics, that all law is politics. And there’s an offshoot of it, and that’s what Derrick Bell taught: Critical race theory. And what Derrick Bell did was take the notion of critical legal studies that all law is politics and add a racial concept to it. Obama learned law at Harvard. Critical legal studies: All law is politics. The law is just a tool to protect the wealthy. This is what they believe; it’s what’s taught.
The law and the Constitution are simply there to keep the man down. All roads lead back to Marx. All roads lead back to socialism, communism, Marxism to one degree or another. And so Obama sees the law as a tool to power. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s nothing special. It deserves no special respect or reverence. It’s just another aspect of the entire political spectrum to be competed in and to win, and it has really no special place. The rule of law is viewed as oppression. Remember, to understand these people, folks, you have to understand how they view the founding. They view the founding of this country as a series of documents written by “rich white guys” who protected slavery.
That’s how they view it. And they view the Constitution as a mechanism for rich white guys to always hold onto all of the power. This is what they are taught. And so their objective is to take that apart, to strike that down, and this is where critical legal studies comes into play. This is where the whole nation of calling the Bill of Rights “a charter of negative liberties” comes into play. These are people that don’t have a love and adoration or a respect for the miracle that was the founding of this country. They look at it as an abject mistake that has to be fixed. Now, I asked you to think hypothetically a moment ago: If the court strikes this down, what do you think Obama would do?
What do we do? When we lose a case at the court, we accept it and we say, “We’ll go back to the drawing board. We’ll try again and try to overcome the objections.” We might have some words about the idiot liberal justices and so forth, but we don’t go on a warpath to tear down the institution that made the ruling. I know. I know. The Republicans are timid anyway. But aside from that, there is a respect for the system. There is a respect for the structure of the country. There is a profound respect for it that our side really, I think, holds dear. To the people we’re up against, it’s nothing special. This Constitution and the legal structure is a plantation to them, in one way of looking at it.
So let’s say that the court strikes down… Just for the hypothetical fun of it, they strike down everything. They decide that the whole law can’t survive without the mandate. They strike the mandate down and say, “You know what? Go back to the drawing board.” What do you think Obama’s gonna do? Obama’s gonna make tracks for the first microphone and camera. And he’s going to say something like this: “For 60 to 75 years, we have been struggling to achieve fairness and justice for all people in this country, not just the privileged few. We have recognized that the way health care exists in this country is emblematic of the injustice and the discrimination that has defined this country since its beginning — and look what happened!
“Republican judges just took away your health care. Republican judges just decided you were about to get too big a piece of the pie. Republican judges determined that you’re not important enough to have health care,” and then he’ll throw in: “We’ve seen similar struggles since the days of Jim Crow,” or he’ll throw in some identifier. He’ll throw in some codeword. And then he’ll relate the loss of health care to civil rights battles that have occurred. And he’ll do this in his best professorial voice. And he, in the process, will be lighting another fuse. And after he finishes, then the sycophants will hit the trail, and we will hear slogans like, “We shall overcome the court! We will overcome the court!”
Then his buddies at The Daily Beast will start writing columns that the judges who voted to overturn it need to be impeached. Where they live will be discovered and publicized. And just as the Democrats sent Occupy people and union people up to the homes of the executives at AIG, so, too, might they do this to various judges, justices, and so forth. I’m getting pretty specific here. Some of this stuff might not happen, but I guarantee you that there will be, with all the rest of this, a defiance. “Why do we have to listen to them anyway?” You remember, this is what critical legal studies is all about. “Why do we have to listen to these guys? These guys, appointed by Republicans, just took away our health care! Why do we have to listen? Why do we have to just, again, shut up and go home quietly and accept this insult and this discrimination? Why? They keep their health care. They didn’t get rid of their own, but they just got rid of yours.”
And it’s off to the races for the 2012 presidential election.
That’s what’s going to happen.
RUSH: No. Critical legal studies says that legal decisions are basically political decisions. There’s no difference in the two. It says that a legal decision is no different than a political act or a political decision, that it’s impossible to tell the two apart. Which, if you stop and think, is what Obama’s saying about the court. And which is what, intellectually, liberal judges use as justification for writing law on the bench. It’s no different. If Congress doesn’t give you the law you want, you go ahead and appoint a bunch of judges who will write it there. You take your products to the court.
“If you can’t win it in Congress, take your politics to the court.” That’s all critical legal studies is and that’s what Obama believes. It’s what he was taught, and if you couple that with the notion the Constitution is this big oppressive document that has to be fixed because it’s essentially unfair, unjust, immoral, lacking in social justice, and all of that? Listen to what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about it in Egypt. There’s nothing in our Constitution about civil rights and human rights and social justice and so forth. You students here in Egypt, don’t use the US Constitution as your model. It’s way behind the times. It’s way antiquated.