About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hour 1: Limbaugh Reacts To Sotomayor Nomination: "Horrible," "Hack," "Disaster" Nominee Who Should "Fail"

May 26, 2009 1:34 pm ET

12 Comments

This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Judge Sotomayor - the "horrible," "hack," "disaster" nominee who should "fail"
By Simon Maloy

Happy Tuesday from the Limbaugh Wire. We have to admit that President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has us pretty frightened. Actually, no, let's rephrase that -- the prospect of chronicling and critiquing Rush Limbaugh's response to President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has us pretty frightened. He's already slammed Sotomayor despite not knowing what court she serves on, and his unique views on women and Hispanics are well documented, so we're anticipating a Class 5 Limbaugh freak-out on this one.

Rush got the show rolling by praising Sotomayor's inspiring and tremendous personal story, but felt impelled to point out that she accomplished everything in her life during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years. We're not sure why he wanted to point this out -- perhaps to knock down liberal claims that Sotomayor can travel through time? Anyway, Rush counseled that Republicans should absolutely "go to the mat" in opposing Sotomayor, explaining: "I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped; she should be. She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words."

Rush went on to offer some more thoughts on Sotomayor, which we could characterize, but we'll instead let his words speak for themselves:

  • "She is a hack like he is a hack, in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy -- not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law, but to make policy."
  • "I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes -- she'd be a disaster on the court."
  • "You know, Obama talks about 'we need people with empathy.' It's not even about empathy, folks; that's just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill."

Now, when Rush said that Sotomayor is a "hack" because she views the court as "a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases," he was referring to a 2005 panel discussion in which Sotomayor said the "court of appeals is where policy is made." Rush aired audio of her comments, saying that she is the embodiment of a judge that is all wrong for the high court, because she stands for "policy-making." Actually, Sotomayor was explaining the differences between judging at the district and federal appeals courts. As the legal observers at Volokh Conspiracy explained: "As presented in the clip, it seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation. Moreover, the fact that many policy disputes are resolved in federal appellate courts does not mean that judges are resolving those cases on policy grounds." But, as a rule, saying something that is "indisputably true" does not dissuade the right from attacking you -- they actually seem to view it as more of a challenge -- so be sure that we'll hear more about this one from Rush.

Then Rush turned his attention to a speech Sotomayor gave in which she extolled the importance of diversity in the courts in which she offered this comment, which has been isolated for criticism by the conservative echo chamber: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Rush offered his thoughts on this: "So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one." After reading extensively from Jeffrey Rosen's disingenuous New Republic piece calling Sotomayor's intelligence into question, Rush said that "she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be. She's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire."

After the break, Rush returned to Sotomayor, saying that the statue of Justice is blindfolded, but there is nothing about Sotomayor that is blindfolded. Rush explained that he thinks her nomination is more about Democratic politics than it is about the Supreme Court. Obama's motivations for nominating her, he said, are that he wants "an anti-constitutionalist on the court," and he wants to use race and gender politics to scare the Republicans. In that sense, said Rush, the nomination is a "two-run homer" for Obama, because it puts the Senate Republicans in a box. Republicans operate under the "illusion," Rush said, that they're treatment of Sotomayor will impact their appeal with Latinos.

So the situation, as Rush explained it, is that Obama has nominated a "party hack" who is likely to be confirmed, and in this situation the moderate Republicans, in Rush's estimation, are completely useless. Conservatives are confronting a "radical assault" on the country, Rush said, and the moderates like Colin Powell and Tom Ridge are distracting from that effort. Rush explained that Democrats and the media don't like him because he does the "heavy lifting" against the Democrats.

Another break and Rush was back, still attacking Powell and Ridge. Rush said that moderates like Powell and Ridge had to be put to the test, and there is no better time than the present, because we have a radical anti-constitutionalist appointed to the Supreme Court by the most radical leftist president we've ever had, who is also anti-constitutionalist. Rush's goal for the hour, it seemed, was to repeat the words "radical" and "anti-Constitutionalist" as many times as he could. Anyway, Rush continued, saying that Sotomayor's nomination is an outrage to "the whole concept of justice."

One more break before the end of the hour, and Rush came back with his three-point explanation of Colin Powell's motivations for his criticisms of Republicans and his support of Obama -- race, anger at Bush, and humiliation. The humiliation, Rush said, stems from Powell's 2003 presentation to the United nations regarding Iraq's scary (and nonexistent) WMDs. Rush said Powell is on a rehabilitation tour with the Washington establishment, and it's working.

Highlights from Hour 1

Outrageous comments

LIMBAUGH: I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped; she should be. She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: She is a hack like he is a hack, in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy -- not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law, but to make policy.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes -- she'd be a disaster on the court.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: You know, Obama talks about "we need people with empathy." It's not even about empathy, folks; that's just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: So she's not -- she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be. She's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the U.S. Supreme Court. It's a close second because he does have an anti-constitutionalist -- if he gets her confirmed, he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court. That's what he wants.

Clips from this hour

Limbaugh calls Sotomayor "a reverse racist," appointed by "the greatest living example of a reverse racist"

Limbaugh on Sotomayor: "She is the antithesis of a judge... She may as well be on the 9th Circus Court of Appeals"

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

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 26, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
      3  
      "She is a hack like he is a hack, in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy -- not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law, but to make policy."

      You see... it's that last part that makes this whole argument into utter nonsense. Putting aside that this college drop-out has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER giving his opinion on Constitutionla Law, how exactly do you "adjudicate constitutional law" in a way that doesn't "make policy" when you find that a LAW (Policy) is unconstitutional?! It's nonsense. It's like he thinks that "adjudicat(ing) constitutional law" means rubber-stamping whatever congress does, or a majority/mob votes for. Rush: adjudicat(ing) constitutional law means that SOME LAWS will be struck down. This is the courts DOING THEIR JOB. This is how WE ARE PROTECTED from excessive GOVERNMENT INTRUSION into out lives! How on earth is this improper?! The only thing a "liberal, activist" court can do (in terms of policy) is strike down laws that take away too many of our freedoms. HOW THE HELL CAN THIS EVER BE BAD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE ALWAYS CRYING ABOUT LIMITING THE POWER OF GOV'T???!!! This IS how you limit the power of government!!! The ACLU understands this, why can't these idiot conservatives?!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 26, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
        1  
        You're right, Eddie, it doesn't make any sense at all.These media wingnuts have just memorized enough buzzwords that they can hypnotize their audience into thinking they're hearing some real intellectual legal analysis.

        It's not uncommon to hear them speak approvingly of Justices
        "interpreting" the law, while at the same time blasting them for interpreting law in a way that goes against any conservative interpretation.It's all bluster and designed to make the dittoheads brains so tired that they just accept it.

        Failure seems to be Rush's new theme. I think he's just barely bright enough that he's realizing, despite his money and fame, El Rushbo is a failure.Hid ideology is being exposed as a complete failure, and he wants to wish others onto his little Failure Island.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 26, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
             
          It's not uncommon to hear them speak approvingly of Justices
          "interpreting" the law, while at the same time blasting them for interpreting law in a way that goes against any conservative interpretation.


          Yep. You nailed it!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 26, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
        1  
        The Troglodytes have evolved this line of thinking over the course of their not-too-admirable history. Comfortably in the majority for most of our history, these angry white males have seen their "rightful place" eroded over time by Supreme Court rulings that have struck down codified bigotry at the state and local level.

        This, understandably, has angered the Troglodytes. In response, they have lashed out irrationally at the very process of judicial review, which has gone against them so many times.

        They really don't give a rat's a$$ about the "Constitutional Rule of Law".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 26, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
             
          Yep. That's pretty much my take. "Government Intrusion" is OK as long as it (1) is done by them; (2) furthers the conservtaive agenda; and (3) in no way, ever, EVER produces any tangible benefits for society.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (May 26, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
        1  
        I trust that both Democrats and Republicans push the confirmation of this great pick for the Supreme Court. And if Republicans do make a choice on factual information and not on issues like Rush's racist remarks, Republicans will lose all the Hispanic votes and they should. For a has-been committed Republican like me, I see the push by the Rushes of the party as still trying to run off all moderate Republicans. I hope Republicans realize that allowing Rush to speak for them without disavowal of his racist comments will commit them to the wilderness of a diminishing number in both the House and the Senate. But if purity is what they want for the 24% or so that they will end up with, they should keep on with this tack. Morally then, thinking Republicans will continue to leave the party because of their Godly values.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (May 26, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
          1  
          correction If Republicans do NOT make a cnoice on factual information and not on issues like Rush's racist remarks, etc
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 26, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
               
            I think it works either way! :) As a vote that the republican's lost between in between the '92 and '94 elections (and have never won back, though I never voted for Clinton!) I very much agree with a lot of what you said. And while I've grown more liberal since then, I could totally support a center-right, populist-libertarian party and I think a lot of other moderate people would as well. But that wouldn't excite the hard-core Fundies or the hard-right Rushies. So it'll never happen, much to the detriment of the Republican party.

            Barry Goldwater knew what he was talking about:

            "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
            And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." ~in a 1981 Speech before congress.

            "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." ~ in a 1994 interview

            "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." ~ in a(nother?) 1994 interview
            Report Abuse
      • Author by franky (May 26, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
           
        "...how exactly do you "adjudicate constitutional law" in a way that doesn't "make policy" when you find that a LAW (Policy) is unconstitutional?"

        I would say it has to to with the court's intent and the eye of the beholder. It's the perception of reverse engineering to a predetermined result which bothers people whether on the right or left. There's a lack of trust that either party will pick people who'll honestly try to interpret the constitution. Limbaugh is a prime generator of this distrust on the Right.

        Finding that a "LAW (Policy) is unconstitutional" wouldn't be thought of as policy-making if people either generally agreed with the ruling, or they disagreed but believed that the court ruled without a constitution-overriding political agenda. It used to be much more so this way perception wise.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 27, 2009 8:31 am ET)
             
          So... BASICALLY it's just a bunch of shullbit?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by canaanxing9025 (May 26, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
         
      "...so we are anticipating a Class 5 freak-out on this one." That is what freaks do. It's their job.

      Does anyone else find Limbaugh tedious?
      Report Abuse