democrats-can’t-stop-acb,-so-they-whine-and-moan

RUSH: So the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings today continued on Judge Barrett, and today it was basically the Democrats whining and moaning about how unfair it is that they can’t stop her and how the Republicans ought to just stop it. Just stop this ’til after the election. It’s not fair. It just isn’t fair. And this is not what the Constitution meant and blah, blah. Just a bunch of bleating and complaining and whining. She’s gonna kill health care for everybody, she’s gonna kill abortion for everybody, you guys are horrible, you guys are rotten.

And the Republicans just sat there and let ’em bleat, which they did. Now it’s a bunch of character witnesses, pro and con, coming up as the part of process that we detest. I mean, the opponents here get their shot at destroying the character and the reputation of a fine woman who’s never done anything to anybody. She’s just a brilliant, brilliant woman of the law.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to the Senate judiciary committee. Have audio sound bite number 14 standing by. The Democrats are whining and moaning about how unfair it all is because they can’t stop Judge Barrett and they think it’s a travesty of the Constitution this is going forward. It’s an absolute disservice to the Senate. It’s one of the most embarrassing moments in the Senate’s history. How dare you Republicans be doing all this.

And at one point, Senator Graham (the chairman of the committee, I guess) had had his fill of this. He’s speaking to Senator Mean Amy Klobuchar about the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. This is how it sounded. Listen…

GRAHAM: Republicans generally look at people of a disposition like Judge Barrett. Democrats generally look at people of a disposition like Justice Sotomayor and Kagan. Uh, y’all have a good chance of winning the White House. I don’t know where the polls are gonna be.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you for acknowledging that —

GRAHAM: Yeah! I think…

KLOBACHAR: — Senator.

GRAHAM: I think it’s true!

RUSH: So he just… This morning, he just told ’em. He just told them — to try to calm them down — “Don’t worry about it! You guys are gonna win the White House.” And Amy Klobuchar, you heard her say, “Thank you for acknowledging that.” Well… (interruption) “What’s the problem with acknowledging it?”

It just kind of feeds into the argument that they shouldn’t be confirming her. If the Democrats… This is their whole argument. Their whole argument is that this nomination should it be going forward, that it ought to be the next president making the nomination, and that’s because they think Biden’s gonna win. But it’s also because they don’t want Amy Coney Barrett anywhere near the Supreme Court.

So… (interruption) No, I don’t think it’s gonna change anything. It’s just he’s given them fuel for the fire here. “Y’all have a good chance of winning the White House. I don’t know where the polls are gonna be.” “Thank you for acknowledging that!” “Yeah. Yeah. I think it’s true,” said Chairman Graham. “I think it’s true y’all have a good chance of winning the White House.”

When they hear that, they say, “Well, then shouldn’t you bring a screeching halt to these proceedings if you acknowledge that the president who nominated her is not gonna win, that that’s gonna be a repudiation of him and everything he’s done?” That’s where they’re gonna go. That’s how they gonna use this if they do.

But the Constitution’s clear. Trump is the guy who makes the choice. Trump is the guy — constitutionally — who makes the choice. The controlling election on this nomination is 2016. It’s not the election in 20 days or however many days it is. The controlling election for judicial nominees like Amy Coney Barrett is the one in 2016. Trump was elected by the people in 2016.

Presidents served for four years. During that four-year term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, creating an opening. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, is empowered — in fact, duly, constitutionally required — to choose a replacement. And the Senate’s role is just to advise and consent and that’s it. There’s nothing about waiting for the next the election if it happens or if it’s real close.

Nothing like that at all. That’s just a Democrat-made argument. By the way, polling data shows that the people are just really jumping in favor of her. “Public Support for Barrett’s Confirmation Shoots Up — New survey data show that public support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court is steadily rising.

A Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday found that 48% of respondents favor Barrett’s confirmation, with just 31% opposed. That’s up 11 points from the Sept. 26 announcement of her nomination…” So Americans watched the legalized abuse of an extraordinarily qualified judge, an extraordinary woman. They rejected the abusers.

They have embraced the victim of the Democrat abuse, Amy Coney Barrett. But look at who applauded the abuse. “Opposition to her nomination is strongest among Democratic women, at 59%. Women overall favor [Amy Coney Barrett] confirmation 40-35.” You break it down by party, and 59% of Democrat women oppose her nomination. Democrat women.

I’d love to know how many of them attended college. How many were indoctrinated with hate? And believe, they have been and they are being. It’s sad. It’s sad. So many people, young people, being indoctrinated with full-fledged hate. In fact, they’re given very little choice. I mean, they’re being told that America is a nation of systemic racism.

“Systemic” means it’s built in, means there’s nothing you can do to get rid of it, means it’s there from the very first day — and there’s nothing good about racism. So these young people have been taught this garbage, and if they believe it then they think they’re supporting a racist nation, and they don’t want to have to do that and they end up hating it, and that’s where they are.

We’ve seen these women all summer. They can’t think clearly. They’re so consumed with this hate. It’s not just women, either. They’ve got hold of a bunch of young men as well. But they’re so consumed with hate, they can’t see a stellar candidate for the Supreme Court, when she’s on television knocking every exchange out of the park.

Now, by the way, these are not feminists who hate Amy Coney Barrett. These are fascists. I’m sorry, but it’s true. They are mind-numbed robots.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There’s something I want to share with you today from the hearings, the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. This was the day the Democrats got to whine about how unfair things are when everything happening is the epitome of fairness, and they got to bring in their witnesses to alternately praise and savage Amy Coney Barrett. So Dick Durbin — who is, I guess, third in command in power on the Democrat side — had this to say about the concept of originalism.

Amy Coney Barrett is said to be an originalist in the interpretation of the Constitution. Scalia was an originalist, and Clarence Thomas is. These are considered to be fine things to be. An originalist is a person who examines the original document. “What’s it mean?” That’s what’s important. So Durbin today wanted to take issue with it. Durbin wanted to try to demonstrate how originalism is just a waste of time, and so he quoted that noted constitutional expert, Chicago mayor Lori Lightweight. This is what he said…

DURBIN: Let me read to you what the mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot — who’s a friend — said, uhh, a couple days ago in a news conference. They asked her if she was an originalist. Here’s what she said: “You ask a gay black woman if she’s an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not. That Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape, or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, and because I’m gay. I’m not an originalist.”

RUSH: Now, on a surface level, I understand that. But surface is how shallow this is. Ms. Lightweight is essentially saying, “This country is not anything special ’cause it didn’t even acknowledge my existence. This country had nothing to say about me. It didn’t want to protect me. It didn’t want to give me any rights. It didn’t want to do anything ’cause I didn’t fit the mold. I wasn’t a rich white man.”

I’ve heard this from a lot of African-Americans my whole life, and I remember the first time I heard it, it moved me. I said, “I totally understand this.” As time went on, like everything else I believe in, I began to create rejoinders, ways to come back at this. Because whereas Lori Lightweight doesn’t think the Constitution was anything for her, what is she now?

The mayor of Chicago.

How does it happen? How did…? How did a woman who thinks that the Constitution didn’t even consider her a person in any way end up being the mayor of Chicago? The answer is the very document that she thinks left her out of everything was the document that permitted — that may be the wrong word — that contained within its writings the ability to change it, to amend it, to evolve. And by the consent of the governed, by the consent of the people.

She is now considered a full-fledged person because the Constitution was malleable. It was adaptable. I think it is a testament to the brilliance of the Constitution. If the Constitution was really etched in stone like these people want you to believe — that the Constitution so bad that we gotta get rid of it — then what’s happened to Lori Lightfoot should never have happened.

She should still be persona non grata. She should still be invisible. She should still be somebody that is unnoticed. But she’s the mayor of Chicago. A lot of people had to engage in a lot of fights for that to happen, but it still did. “But, Rush, she’s not objecting to the Constitution. She’s objecting to the notion of originalism.”

Yeah, it was originalism — it was originalists — who structured the document in such a way that it remained intact while accommodating these changes, that it retained its form. It retained its purpose! The people that wrote the Constitution were the same people that wrote the Declaration in a sense, and they knew about the founding of the country…

I don’t want to go through this over and over and over again, but it was necessary to form a union in order to rebel against Great Britain, and the union forming was key. Back in those days, there was slavery in some of the 13 colonies. Deals have to be made. If you go back and read some of the things written and debated, there was not massive support in the founding days of this country for slavery.

In fact, most of the heretofore white Founding Fathers were repulsed by it and knew it couldn’t survive, knew the country wouldn’t survive with that aspect of it. The point is that an “originalist” document was not rigid at all. It was not incapable of change. It’s no reason to hate the Constitution. It’s not reason to hate originalism. She’s now the mayor of Chicago.

She may think that that all happened despite the Constitution; the Constitution didn’t have a role in it. I disagree. Even so, she’s a smart woman. The fact that you can’t see — that anybody can’t see — the genuine brilliance that is the United States Constitution troubles me anyway, because take away your personal stake in things. Take away the idea that you think government’s there for you. Take away the fact that the purpose of government is to give you this and give you that; make sure this happens to you.

If you take that away from everything and have a healthy understanding of the political formations that comprise the United States, it is one of the most timeless, brilliant documents ever conceived by humanity. Inability to see that because of personal grievance, it’s a shame. I wish it weren’t the case. I wish people like Lori Lightfoot had the ability to see it a different way, rather than carry around 200 years’ worth of grudges that are not productive. Anyway, in this case it was simply used to oppose Amy Coney Barrett, so that’s probably the extent of it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Dave. Dave in Orlando, Florida. Great to have you, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Prayers to you, sir.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: I was calling about the concern that you’d brought up on the phone the other day about Mazie Hirono’s questioning on the sexual assault and harassment that she had brought up during the hearing, and I caught that on a number of the networks as well. I was just calling to let you know that I’ve watched a number of the appellate judge hearings that they have on the web, and she asks that question of everybody, so it’s nothing special that came out for Amy.

RUSH: Oh, she does?

CALLER: Yes, she does. She asks that of everybody. I don’t know if that’s a method of getting them on the record or not, but she does ask that of everybody.

RUSH: So it doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s ready to spring some sort of Kavanaugh surprise?

CALLER: No. And, like I said, she’s asked it in every hearing I’ve watched and I’ve probably watched 15 or 20 of the hearings.

RUSH: I gotcha. Okay. Well, I guess it’s somewhat of a relief. I did not know that. What we’re talking about here, Mazie Hirono, the senator from Hawaii famous for telling male senators on the Judiciary Committee to shut up, asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Since you became an adult, has anybody ever accused you of making unwanted sexual advances on them or have you done it?” I’m paraphrasing, something along the lines of that. “Since you became an adult, have you ever demanded sexual favors or performed sexual favors on people that were not comfortable with them and didn’t want them and so forth.”

“Well, no, Senator, and, no, Senator.” And just on the surface this sounded like a gigantic setup. All she would have to have is some disgruntled student of Amy Coney Barrett’s waiting in the wings, be trotted out like Christine Blasey Ford was for Kavanaugh. So your comment is somewhat a relief. I appreciate it, Dave, very much.

Read More

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.