Hour 1: Limbaugh Reacts To Sotomayor Nomination: "Horrible," "Hack," "Disaster" Nominee Who Should "Fail"
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: Obama wants an "anti-constitutionalist" on the Supreme Court















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?!
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.
"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!
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".
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
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.
Does anyone else find Limbaugh tedious?