Obama Puts Out Bounty on Supreme Court April 03, 2012
All Audio & Video »
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Obama and his attack on the Supreme Court yesterday. It happened toward the end of the program in the last half hour and it was happening on the fly. I didn't really have enough time to listen in detail to what Obama said, and thus I didn't have a chance to, in detail, reply. I've now listened to what Obama said. I've got three sound bites here.
When I got home yesterday at about six o'clock last night I got a flash encrypted message from a friend who says, "You know, somebody in the court leaked to Obama. That's why he went out there and did this today. Somebody called him. He lost the vote, the preliminary vote on Friday. He lost it, and somebody leaked it." And that became an active theory that began to be bandied about amongst a lot of people that I know. Because people were saying,
 "Why go out," as Obama did yesterday...? It was in the form of a question. We must remember that he was asked a question about this. He didn't launch into this on his own, but once he got the question, it was, "Katie, bar the door," and he was off to the races.
And the question everybody was asking is: "Why do this? Why attack the court? Why intimidate them, why threaten them if they had voted to uphold the mandate?" And I have an answer for that. See, I know these people. I know liberals. I don't want that statement to sound bombastic. You people here -- new listeners to the program -- that's not a braggadocios statement. It's not bombastic. It's not outrage or any attempt to shock. I just know them, and so when somebody asks me, "Why would Obama say that if he didn't have to? If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?" There is an answer to that. I don't know if it's right, but there is an answer.
He's a thug.
And again, I'm not trying to be provocative when I say this. I'm just quoting Bill Clinton, folks. Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign. This after Clinton some years earlier had told Juanita Broaddrick, "Put some ice on that lip" after she said he raped her. (I mentioned that for this "war on women" that supposedly the Republicans are waging.) But there's every possibility that Obama feeling his oats, being told that the vote went his way, would still go out and do this, 'cause he knows there are more votes to come. I'm not predicting it. I'm just saying I could understand it.
It's easier to understand that somebody leaked to him that the preliminary vote went against him and that the mandate fell by whatever the preliminary vote was and that explains his attitude yesterday. But I can see him saying what he said if the vote went in his favor as well, as a means of further intimidation, making sure they don't change their minds or whatever. You might say, "Well, how would that work? Wouldn't that just kind of make them be more resistant?" The reason this is all a crock in the first place is that (and we will go through this as we play the Obama sound bites) it is obvious that to the left this is an entirely political process.
 There's nothing judicial going on here. There's nothing legal. This isn't even really about the Constitution. This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama's reelection. It's all it is. But he says things in these sound bites which you'll hear coming up and they're chilling to me. "The court has to understand..." "The court must understand," is one of his sound bites. No, the court must not -- does not have to -- listen to you. What is this, "The court must understand"? That is a threat! How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote? Can you see it happening? I can.
I'm not predicting it. (interruption) You're shaking your head. You don't think it would ever happen? Why would he be...? Why would Obama visiting the Supreme Court between now and June be any more unconscionable than what he did yesterday? (interruption) It's a visual? No! He's just going up to say hi to Kagan. He's going up to say hi to Kagan and Sotomayor, to see how they're doing. (interruption) He called 'em out of the State of the Union right to their face. Remember that with Justice Alito? Anyway, let me take a break. We'll come back and we will get into some of these sound bites and we'll tear this down as it happened sometimes line by line. Mike, be prepared when I say, "Stop." There might be some frequent stops and starts as we go through this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Reuters was just as excited as they could be over what Obama did. "Obama Takes a Shot at the Supreme Court Over Health Care -- President Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping health care law would be an act of judicial activism that Republicans say they abhor." Warning? Warning? And Reuters is happy! (That's right! You take it to these conservatives!) Judicial activism? You know, the debate is constantly held: "Is he really this ignorant or naive, or is this just strategic?"
Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That's not what judicial activism is. I know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to take this term, and they're trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are). But, folks, I'm gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it's even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.
This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn't even know the meaning of the term "judicial activism." No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution! Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. Now, maybe this is why we've never seen Obama's grade transcripts, if he really doesn't know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he's trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.
You remember Jeffrey Toobin? You talk about a guy who's done a 180 here, turned on a dime. During the week of oral arguments, Jeff Toobin, CNN legal analyst, was in an abject panic. These people on the left... And again, ladies and gentlemen, this is the solid truth. They do not expose themselves to any ideological thinking other than their own. They have assumed that conservatism is racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, all of these cliches they attach to it. And they're not interested in talking to anybody that they think is a conservative. They really are not familiar with other ideas. They don't speak the language. We, of course, can speak liberalism as well as they do. We understand it.
 How can we not? We're exposed to it from the time we're born. They shield themselves, their families, their friends from conservatism as much as possible. Liberalism is a gated community. Not only is liberalism a gated community, there's a moat before you get to the gate. They simply don't understand it. And so Jeff Toobin literally was having a cow when he heard the justices on the court question the government lawyer from a conservative constitutional point of view, and he was shocked. He was unfamiliar with it. Now, you may find it hard to believe. "Rush, these guys are in the news media and they talk about conservatives all day long."
They really are strangers to our core beliefs, folks. So after the shock of being exposed to it wore off, then Toobin and the rest of 'em (including Obama) had to come up with a way to feel right about everything again. They had to come up with a pacifier. And so what they have done is construct this notion of judicial activism to throw it right back in our faces. And now their definition of judicial activism would be the court throwing out something that the United States Congress did. Because, as far as they're concerned, if the Congress did it, and the Congress was Democrats, it's constitutional. No questions asked. No argument possible. That's it. If the court throws that out, that's judicial activism. Judicial activism cannot possibly exist if the court is following the Constitution. This is really a teachable moment here. |
