Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: So obviously first up here is the Supreme Court and the upholding of President Trump’s travel ban. You know, the fact that the four libs on this court voted against it is all the proof anybody needs that the Constitution is the last consideration when they get into their rulings. This travel ban, there was never a question about it. The president, as the chief executive, is solely, singularly entitled to make such bans. Because he singularly and solely is over immigration with the laws established by Congress. He can do what he did. The only avenue that the opposition had — and this is what these district courts in Hawaii and Oregon said — “Well, we can’t let the president do this ’cause he hates Muslims!”

There was nothing in the executive order about the travel ban that was about hating Muslims. There was nothing in it about hating anybody. In fact, a total Muslim ban was not in the executive order. It was only certain countries. But these wacko judges parroting wacko media leftists and others, “Well, did you hear what he said on the campaign trail? We know what he really thinks and so because of what he said on the campaign trail we’re gonna say he can’t do it ’cause the guy’s a racist pig.”

And the Supreme Court majority 5-4 — more on that in a moment — just blew these people out of the water. But the four liberals on this court, if they really, really cared about or sought to use the Constitution in their ruling, it should have been a 9-0 ruling, and it should have happened years ago. It shouldn’t take this long for the adjudication of something that is unquestionably constitutional. And the fact that it squeaked by with one vote — I mean, all these Never Trumpers saying vote Democrat in November to get rid of Trump?

Well, hello. If you vote Democrat, if you had voted Democrat in 2016, none of these rulings that we got today would have happened. We’d have lost every damn one of them and others going forward. I mean, this to me is a great illustration of the lawlessness — and I mean that. I’m not trying to sugarcoat anything here. You know, not trying to be hyperbolic. The liberals on this court literally paid no heed to the United States Constitution in their ruling.

And I remember when the first travel ban happened and then they had to rewrite it, the second travel ban, these judges in Oregon and Hawaii started feeling their oats and flexing their muscles. We were told by all these legal experts on all the various cable news channels from day one that it would never pass constitutional muster. All of CNN’s experts, “Yeah, they’ll never fly by the Supreme Court. Trump can’t do this because he’s a racist, he’s bigoted,” and so forth. All they had was what Trump had supposedly said on the campaign trail.

And, furthermore, these legal scholars that the Drive-By Media presented us scoffed at Trump’s ignorance that even thinking such a ban would be allowed by the courts. And yet once again the legal scholars have been smacked down, embarrassingly so, and once again Donald Trump has been proven right.

Now, there’s an interesting sideline regarding the ruling, is that the court completely ignored the plaintiff’s argument, and they really actually argued this, that Trump’s tweets during the campaign showed that his travel ban was intended to discriminate. This is no different than these leftists saying the exit polls should count more than real votes. When they lose and the exit polls show them winning, the exit polls are right and the actual votes shouldn’t count. I’m not making that up. That happened in 2000, what was it, 4, after horse face, after retaking Boston Harbor, Democrat convention lost the election. They claimed he won the exit polls.

This is no different. Here’s Trump on the campaign trail, he’s tweeting various things, and these people want to say that what’s in the executive order doesn’t matter. No, no, no. Because what Trump really meant is what he tweeted. Well, if it wasn’t in the executive order, it can’t be ruled on. Slam dunk! And the court thankfully stood up for this. The fact that this has to be explained to people is in itself a little unsettling. They literally argued before the court that Trump’s tweets show that his travel ban was intended to discriminate against all Muslims, even though the travel ban did not do that itself.

Now, this is the only way the court could rule since they’re supposed decide cases based on the written text of the executive order and the law and then the Constitution. They cannot use the supposed mind-set of a candidate or the mind-set of a legislature before these orders are written. All they can rule on is the actual order itself. But the left, in its identity politics and its attempt to distort the views of everybody, wanted the court to rule on what Trump had tweeted during the campaign.

Now, imagine if we lost this — and we could have. Folks, we could have lost this and the Constitution would have been rendered worthless and turned upside down. We could have lost this. We didn’t, but we could have. One-vote margin is very narrow. The justices would have had to get into the business of tracking down everything a president or legislator ever said on any subject and treating it as legally binding. So Candidate A is campaigning for the Congress in 2004. He says some things and then gets elected and later runs for the presidency and gets elected and then issues an executive order on something.

What the left wants us to do is go back to when the guy was a candidate or at any time in his life, and if it contradicts what his executive action or executive order is, they want the court to be able to overturn it. It simply would be impossible. And this dictates, I think, indicates the Stalinist, authoritarian mentality that we’re up against here with the American left, tracking everything a candidate, a president or legislator ever said on any subject and treating it as legally binding.

It’s preposterous. But it was a ludicrous argument against Trump’s ban in the first place. Trump seems to have the knack of forcing people into making preposterous arguments anyway. I give you Maxine Waters. Everybody is talking about needing to shut her down. No. No. Encourage her. The left knows we got a whole sound bite roster coming here where they’re desperately trying to get her to shut up ’cause they know — and you know, there’s another thing. People have been asking — by people, I mean, deranged lunatics, “Where is Obama? Where is Obama? Why isn’t Obama out there answering and dealing with any of this crazy stuff Trump is doing on the border?”

I have a poll here that shows Barack Obama, modern poll, currently alive people, Barack Obama near the bottom of a poll asking people to rate the best president. There’s no doubt why Obama’s not showing up in public. I’ll get to the details in a moment. I don’t have them right in front of me, and I don’t want to start shuffling through papers here, but it’s pretty devastating.

I mean, the most popular president shows up at 33% as best president ever, and Obama’s like three or four percent. I mean, it’s horrible. And it might explain why Obama is off doing what socialists do when nobody’s looking: make a lot of money, when nobody’s looking. Like Bernie Sanders, second year in a row Bernie earned a million dollars. Doing what? He’s still in the United States Senate. What is Bernie Sanders doing to earn a million dollars?

If they earn a million dollars, aren’t they supposed to give most of it away to people who haven’t earned a million dollars. Anyway, it’s kind of fun. Let’s go to the audio sound bites. Wolf Blitzer at CNN, even though the Supreme Court ruling was handed down kept hoping that a guest would tell him it really hadn’t happened. CNN, Wolf Blitzer kept bringing experts in to say, it isn’t this bad, that Trump didn’t really win. Wolf could not accept what had happened. First he tries with Jeffrey Toobin.

BLITZER: This is a big win for the president, even though it’s the third iteration of the travel ban. Very different than the first iteration, when he said on December 7th, 2015, as a candidate, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. This third version is much different.

TOOBIN: Chief Justice Roberts really addresses the issue which has been so much at the heart of this whether the president’s really bigoted words during the campaign affect the outcome of this case. And they said when the executive order is so clearly within the president’s power, we are not gonna consider what he said during the campaign discriminatory, though that may have been.

RUSH: They didn’t say “though it may have been” except in these stupid dissents. They didn’t say, “Stupid, though it may have been.” Welcome to the establishment clause, baby. That’s the clause on which this ruling actually turned. I’m stupefied here that this has been taken seriously to the extent that it has. Where the president’s really bigoted words during the campaign affect the outcome of this case, and they said, when the executive order is so clearly within the president’s power, which all three of them were, all three of them were clearly in his power, they were all constitutional. Had nothing to do with what Trump had tweeted.

This has been one of the biggest wastes of time to establish something that was already established. This is the obstructionism of the left. So next Wolf brings on Inside Politics host John King hoping for a different analysis.

BLITZER: 5-4 decision, John. Pretty much along the way everybody expected. There was some wonder would Justice Kennedy swing one way or the other way. He went with the majority. Shows how significant the Supreme Court justices are.

KING: It does, and it’s a victory for the president, again. It’s also a reminder of the sloppy, some would say Keystone Kops way, especially version one, was handled. I assume today he is going to celebrate.

BLITZER: Yeah. It’s a win for him, there’s no doubt about that.

RUSH: Yeah, it’s a win, damn it, no doubt about that, damn it. Yeah, I assume Trump’s gonna celebrate, damn it. How does Trump celebrate? He rams this stuff back down their throats. What do they think Trump’s gonna do? Celebrate. The fact that Trump won just gnaws at these people. You see, Wolf has to the cite the fact the first two were really, really bad, evidence that Trump doesn’t even know what he’s doing, you see.

Next, Wolf brings on Jeff Zeleny, formerly of the New York Times and now a propagandist and a leftist Democrat activist for CNN. Blitzer’s question: No official White House reaction yet here, Jeff. Could it be that they really don’t think it’s a win?

ZELENY: There’s no official White House reaction except the words of one senior administration official I just spoke to who used the word “vindication” to describe the Trump administration’s view of this ruling.

BLITZER: Vindication, the White House says vindication right now. They clearly see this as a victory.

RUSH: Yeah, but you don’t, right? (imitating Blitzer) “Vindication. They clearly see this as a vindication.” You had a bunch of nincompoop little federal judges out there in the farthest regions of the union using unconstitutional means to try to stop the duly elected president from executing his constitutional duties! Vindication? It’s all of us who feel vindication, Wolf. It’s not just Trump. Again, folks, this hinged on the justices making a point of ignoring anything not in the executive order, such as Trump’s tweets.

Now, Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas had a concurrence in the majority opinion, and it was important, it is important. He casts doubt on the legal viability of the practice of one district judge issuing an injunction that applies nationwide. This is something that irritated us when it happened. First they go out and they judge-shop and they find some little liberal nincompoop out in Oregon, starts beating his chest like Tarzan, “Trump can’t do it, Trump can’t do because Trump hates Muslims,” and he shuts down the whole thing.

And then they judge-shopped and they found a guy in Hawaii, did the same thing. And Justice Thomas says this isn’t even viable. We cannot have a judicial system where a lone federal judge sitting in the outer hinterlands can issue an injunction that applies nationwide. These district court judges do not have that power. Those are my words. I’m not saying that Justice Thomas used those words.

But this practice that they’re doing allows a single liberal judge to nullify national policy on a whim, and I was glad to see Justice Thomas reference that. But, folks, there’s a lot of other Supreme Court rulings today that the left took a slam dunk on and a judge in San Francisco slapped ’em down on a climate change trial or case.


RUSH: So I wonder now if the Supreme Court justices — the five who ruled for Trump in most of these cases. I wonder if they’re not gonna be able to eat in public now. I wonder if they’re going to be harassed if they go to the store, go to the movies, whether they’re gonna be targeted by the same brownshirt thugs that the Democrats and the Drive-Bys have sic’d on Sarah Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen. Don’t put it past these people. By the way, one other thing on the SCOTUS ruling. Anybody remember the name Sally Yates?

Sally Yates was a deep state holdover from the FBI running the scandalous operation to get rid of Donald Trump. She refused to enforce the travel ban. Remember, she was celebrated as a great heroine, and Trump fired her — and she was celebrated some more as a great heroine. Well, the travel ban ruling by the court validates Trump firing her just like Trump has been validated in his firing of James Comey.


RUSH: Ray in Dallas. I’m glad you called. It’s great to have you here. Hi.

CALLER: Mr. Limbaugh, thank you for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: My question involves Ms. Ginsburg, our Supreme Court justice. Why is she not recusing herself from anything that comes out of the office of our great president after what she said about him during the election?

RUSH: You mean during the campaign?

CALLER: During the campaign.

RUSH: Well, ’cause she’s a liberal Democrat judge, they don’t recuse themselves. It’s impossible for them to disqualify themselves. This is the point of liberals. It’s impossible for them to disqualify themselves. In their minds, it’s not possible. To even suggest such a thing means you’re the one that has problems. She doesn’t have a problem. The real question is why aren’t others demanding it?

CALLER: You’re right. Exactly right.

RUSH: No, you’re right. She was saying some horrible things about Trump on the campaign trail, about how he shouldn’t win, his mouth is filthy, and then here comes this travel ban ruling, and, lo and behold, she votes against him. And there’s no doubt why. She doesn’t like the guy. There’s no question on the surface that she could be impartial here. She can’t be. But if nobody’s gonna demand it and our side doesn’t do these kinds of things. We, on the other hand, we recuse before anybody demands that we recuse thinking that this is how Democrats are gonna respect us. Hee-hee. It’s frustrating. I appreciate the call, Ray.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This