About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh attacks AZ judge as "partisan political operative"

July 29, 2010 1:57 pm ET

From the July 29 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

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

Previously:

Right wing rushes to malign AZ judge -- who Kyl called "highly competent, very well respected"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by magnolialover (July 29, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
      5  
      Except, she's not Rush. She ruled according to the law or laws currently on the books. As in, she did her job.

      Just because she ruled the way you didn't want to her is irrelevant.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Boswell (July 29, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
        1  
        "She ruled according to the law or laws currently on the books. As in, she did her job."

        which is the precise reason it drives him up the wall :)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by indigo1968 (July 29, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
        4  
        Right, as if we couldn't see this coming.

        The right's definition of an "activist judge" is once again proved to be one who renders a decision unpopular with conservatives - never mind if said conservative position ran roughshod over the constitution.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jalt (July 29, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
             
          Oh, so liberals believe in the constitution now? Wow that's a shocker.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by xlrrp173 (July 29, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
               
            Hey Jalt. I swore an oath to the constitution when I joined the Army. When did you??????
            Report Abuse
            • Author by indigo1968 (July 29, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
                 
              Actually, Jalt, liberals believe in supporting the whole constitution.

              This, versus conservatives who enjoy cherry-picking it to, say, justify a torture policy or wail about the evils of the 17th amendment.



              Report Abuse
        • Author by all your eyes (July 29, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
          3  
          Right, but let me quarrel with a fine point here. Those who support the AZ law are not conservatives. They may be radical right wingers, they may be fascists, they may be racists, but they are not conservatives. No one who adheres to a conservative political philosophy would be comfortable with a law that would require individuals to carry identification and proof of citizenship at all times at the risk of indefinite detention without probable cause or due process. I understand that's not the basis of the challenge to the law here, because no one would yet have standing to make those claims, but that is what the effect of the law would be, were it not also unconstitutional by pre-empting Federal authority over immigration policy. So while died-in-the-wool conservatives may dislike the pre-emption argument, they would rejoice at the striking down of this onerous and un-American statute.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by all your eyes (July 29, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
            2  
            Let me just add to that, those who support this law may also be confused. There's a lot of that going around among the body politic in this country right now.. hard to imagine where THAT is coming from...
            Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (July 29, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
      1 10
      She had to gut the law before it was to be enforced because the argument by the left that the cops in AZ are racist and people will be arrested because of their race alone will be debunked. It will eventually get to the SCOTUS then it will be enforced after they rule that the AZ judge legislated from the bench and overruled the will of the people. Just wait.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 29, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
        6  
        Umm, she didn't legislate from the bench, she applied the current laws on the books, and how they are enforced to this law, and found parts of it (not all of it) un-Constitutional and ill defined.

        You do realize that the judicial is one of the co equal branches of Government right? And that, this is how these things work.

        A law is passed that some might think is un-Constitutional. This law, or the health care law for examples that come to mind. Before they are enacted, suits are filed in federal courts asking for judicial review and interpretation of if the law is Constitutional or not.

        You guys are just mad because she didn't rule the way you wanted her to. Chances are good, this will be appealed, and make its way towards the SCOTUS, and chances are good, they won't take the case, because her ruling is based on solid jurisprudence.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by indigo1968 (July 29, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
        7  
        Seaslug:

        This is American Civics 101: Federal law supersedes state law, just as state law supersedes local law.

        Here endeth the lesson, not that you'll listen.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (July 29, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
          2
        With the number of left-leaning justices, you think the SCOTUS is going to rule in the GOP/AZ's favor?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by indigo1968 (July 29, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
          3  
          It has nothing to do with left or right-leaning justices. It has to do with following a basic tenet of constitutional law.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by internet soldier (July 29, 2010 5:03 pm ET)
             
          Huh, do you realize SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States? I'm wondering because you suggested SCOTUS, as in the current supreme court, is left-lefting. Did you think SCOTUS referred to something else? That's the only way I could imagine you could possibly SCOTUS is left-leaning.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by epichuntarz (July 29, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
           
        A number of sheriff's in border counties would disagree with you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 29, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
        3  
        Boy, you really don't know a thing about the law, do you?

        The judge's ruling was consistent with the Constitution, stupid.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (July 29, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
        2  
        You really are clueless, aren't you? Immigration is not a state matter, it's a federal matter.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (July 29, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
           
        Seaweed. Our law are not based on the will of the people, they are based on the Constitution, which is set up to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the people.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressiveright (July 29, 2010 5:43 pm ET)
           
        So you and the rest of the right get to say that our will over powers the restrictions of the Constitution on state powers. This proves that you seahawks are a hypocrite.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by epichuntarz (July 29, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
      1  
      Kyl, and the republican controlled congress that unanimously confirmed her, must have REALLY been stupid to not have seen through this act.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (July 29, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
      1  
      Nope, she's just a good judge who ruled on the law pursuant to the Constitution. Why do you hate the Constitution, Rush?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by raddave43 (July 29, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
         
      Because Rush is a partisan political operative, he assumes everyone else is as well.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wsteele8074 (August 01, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
         
      The most amazing part of Thursday's Limbaugh show was the 3rd hour when he discussed 'moral depravity.' This from a man who ranks up there with Keith Richards in drug consumption, used his maid for a dope mule and compared a President's young daughter to a dog.
      Report Abuse