About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh: Obama wants an "anti-constitutionalist" on the Supreme Court

May 26, 2009 2:16 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by adamsinclair0078312 (May 26, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
      2  
      Didn't you know Rush is an expert on the U.S. Constitution! Afterall, he's got a law degree from Harvard and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

      Oh wait, that was Obama.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bronwyn (May 26, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
           
        Even with all those credentials you mention.LOL Rush has proved many times that he does not know the constitution, law or the truth from a Pilonidal cyst.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (May 26, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
         
      It really is this simple. Rush is a liar. Not exactly news to sane people. Rush is a bloviating screechmonkey whose only job is to throw red meat to the stupidest of the rubes. It will be a mark of progress in this country when he cant garner 10 listeners. As long as people take the man seriously he will lie and cause problems. Remember never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latanza (May 26, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
           
        We only comment on Rush because he is absurd and always worth a cheap shot. Let's not.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Bronwyn (May 26, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
           
        His career is based on political discord. That is what he gets paid to rant about. I do not think he would have an audiance if he didn't make outrageous comments his ditto heads do not care about the truth. It's all about smear the liberals.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (May 26, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
      1  
      I love how Rush brings race into the argument and then accuses Democrats of using race to attack him.

      I would assume that if Rush does not want race brought up, then he shouldn't do it in the first place. Of course, we all know from his past controversies, Rush just cannot help himself. It is his fixed idea.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 26, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
        4  
        He's still mad that a black general by the name of Colin Powell has a higher popular opinion poll than Rush and Cheney combined.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (May 26, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
      4  
      At a Senate hearing in 1997 before she was confirmed to the appeals court, Sotomayor was asked by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., whether she would "read additional rights into the Constitution" such as a right to homosexual conduct by a prisoner.

      "I cannot do it," she replied. "The Constitution is what it is. We cannot read rights into them. They have been created for us."

      Yup, sounds like an anti-constitutionalist to me...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (May 26, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
      1  
      I think Rush forgot a ankle-grabbing reference.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bronwyn (May 26, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
           
        That will come tomarrow, be sure it will be said eventually
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jlw7717595 (May 26, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
      1  
      You know it is really funny how these idiots become experts on someone in a few hours, when they had probably never heard of her at this time last month.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 26, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
      4  
      *sigh* The judiciary was established as one of the three "equal" branches of government. They exsist to strike down the actions of the other two when they go too far. Marbury v. Madison upholds this view, power and function. What's more, the Constitution itself PROTECTS our rights. It's doesn't LIMIT them. It is not an EXHAUSTIVE list - the document itself states this quite clearly.

      So BOTH the CONSTITUTION AND the JUDICIARY exsist to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS, FREEDOMS and LIBERTIES. So how is "liberal judicial activism" ever a bad thing? How is it ever anti-america or anti-constituional? (Putting aside that this is a term that he just made up!)

      "LEGISLATION" involves making LAWS, which makes things ILLEGAL. This WOULD further limit our freedoms, but there is really no way for a judge to ever do this. So they can't "Legislate from the bench." They can't take away a freedom by outlawiung somethign that's currently legal. All they can do in their "activism" is LEGALIZE something that's ILLEGAL, but for no good reason. Well, WHAT'S EVER WRONG WITH DOING THAT?! That's what FREEDOM is all about! That's what AMERICA is all about!

      What is wrong with these people?!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 26, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
        1  
        "What is wrong with these people?" People like LIMBAUGH can't think outside their little FAR RIGHT WING box. CONSERVATIVE ideology is everything for them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (May 26, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
        1  
        They always seem to forget about that 3rd equal branch of the government don't they? Except when it's, you know, handy for them. Bush v. Gore comes to mind.
        Report Abuse