TODD: The Supreme Court is gonna hear some of the most consequential cases that are ever gonna happen. For instance, once again, Obamacare, which was blatantly unconstitutional to begin with. Want me to count the ways? Well, it originated in the Senate, not the House; it was a spending bill.
It went to the Supreme Court saying it was a fee; there were no taxes. John Roberts said, “No, a fee is a tax,” which it’s not; therefore, that was the first time he pretended it was constitutional. The second time, John Roberts pretended that Washington, D.C., was a state. It’s not a state yet. God willing it will never be a state.
Those are the two times John Roberts pretended it was constitutional. Why? Well, maybe one day we’ll know. Or this: Can a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia participate in a foster care program because they don’t recognize same-sex unions? Well, what does one have to do with the other? Can’t that group practice its faith and do adoptions for people whom they can do adoptions?
We’ll see what the Supreme Court says about that. Or this: In Arizona, can ballot harvesting be a crime? Well, wait a minute. It says in the Constitution that the elections for federal office will be handled by the legislatures of the various states. Arizona can do what it wants to do.
So we’re gonna have a contest here to see how original and how beholden to the Constitution are Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. We’re gonna find that out. To many, many, many, many people the court is just having six conservatives and three liberal-minded individuals. So how they’re willing to play out. How will Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s presence impact these decisions?
Remember, she joined the court late last October, and here’s Rush after her swearing in.
RUSH: Amy Coney Barrett threw down the gauntlet last night in her acceptance speech at the White House after having been sworn in as the newest Supreme Court associate justice. What an incredible statement. What an incredible speech that was. But, I mean, she really did throw down the gauntlet to people who have a totally jaundiced view of the role and purpose of the courts in our society and in our politics. It was really, really well done, really great.
Now on to Amy Coney Barrett. NBC News last night devoted 50 seconds, less than one minute, to the Senate confirmation vote and her swearing in. CBS News devoted 50 seconds to Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation vote and swearing in. ABC News devoted zero seconds. There was absolutely no coverage on ABC of Amy Coney Barrett being sworn in or of the historic Senate vote.
Every law student in this country ought to have to watch it. Every other person, for that matter. It’s as clear, powerful, and easily understandable a description of the job differences and duties of the legislative and judicial branches that you will find anywhere. In clarifying these roles, she has put the left on defense. They cannot argue with her, so now they’re gonna continue to attack her — and they are.
They are threatening her. Da Nang Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut is claiming, “There will be consequences.” He threatened her for daring to accept the vote one week prior to an election. Man, are these people… They’re just flat-out mean and vicious. The supposed Democrats of compassion and love and tolerance. I’m gonna tell you what’s happened, folks.
President Trump has exposed Democrats as haters of successful working mothers and successful black men. That’s exactly what he has exposed. The Democrats hate successful working mothers. They hate successful black men. Given the vitriol directed at Justice Barrett by the Democrats, think it’s fair to ask, why do Democrats hate working mothers with children of color?
She has two children of color. She has seven kids, two adopted from Haiti. Why do they hate her? By the same token, why do Democrats hate Clarence Thomas? Highly educated, successful black man, now the dean of the Supreme Court. I mean, playing by their rules, the reason Democrats hate Justice Barrett and Thomas is ’cause they’re misogynists and racists.
They can’t believe that this court’s now 6-3 conservative. They can’t believe that Justice Roberts has been eliminated now as the power behind the court to fix things. It’s 6-3 conservatives now with Amy Coney Barrett. We have a couple of sound bites. Here is the first one.
BARRETT: It is the job duty of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government.
RUSH: This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. The judiciary is not political. It’s the only branch of the three which isn’t. Not supposed to be. She said federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. And they shouldn’t. Here’s the next bite.
BARRETT: My fellow Americans, even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it.
RUSH: That’s Amy Coney Barrett in her acceptance speech. The whole thing was just fabulous. It was fantastic, and it is something that every student should be forced to read and to understand because it was the single greatest explanation of the role of a judge in the American political system today that I have ever heard.
TODD: It has a counterbalance to that. The so-called governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has a preference. She wants people who want to be medical professionals in her state to have to go through what’s called “implicit bias training,” in other words, to be taught the that they’re racists even if they’re not racist.
Even if they’ve never been given a racial preference in their life, they’re still racist — that is, if they’re white or Asian and “white adjacent” or a “white Hispanic,” not a Hispanic-Hispanic, or a white Greek, not a nonwhite Greek. See, when you start twisting language around the idea that words only matter because they can bring about ends you enjoy, that’s where you end up, such as critical race theory in the schools — which, thank goodness, there’s governors pushing back against.