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

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.

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

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.

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...

I think Rush forgot a ankle-grabbing reference.

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.

*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?!