Rush Limbaugh: Clinton Promised Pro-Abortion Judges

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 10/20/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[wagglebee]

Snerdley looked it up. He found it. April 5th, 1992, this is during the campaign, Bill Clinton said, "And I will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who believe in the constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose." So there Clinton did establish his litmus test. So it's okay for the libs to say, "We're going to get a pro-choice nominee. They're going to be pro-Roe vs. Wade," but somehow Republicans can't say this. Republican nominees say it. Republican presidents can't say it. "Weeeell, I have never talked to our nominee about that! You know, I don't have any litmus tests, oh, no, no, no! I wouldn't dare presume how our nominee is going to rule on such an issue." So here we have to hide what we're doing and have to, behave in a totally different way than the left gets to behave -- and not just on this, but other crucial issues. But it is a good point.

So what I'm referring to here is the Novak column today in which it is said that these hearings for Harriet Miers could feature "unspeakable ugliness," and what he's referring to is a conference call made to 12 or 13 religious leaders in America by two friends of Harriet Miers who assured these religion leaders in the conference call that she will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade when it comes before her if she's confirmed. Now, fine examine dandy. I have no problem with that. But the White House has been out saying just the opposite. They don't even know what she thinks about it, and so it gives the appearance they've lost control of the process or are not telling the truth, which means the Democrats now are free, if they want to, to subpoena these two guys. One of them is the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Nathan Hecht.

So if they get subpoenaed come before the committee. "What did you say to these religious, these Christians? What did you say to these Christians when you were talking to them about Harriet Miers?"

"I don't know."

Then they'll subpoena John Fund. Well, John Fund did the story. He's got the notes. This could quickly see this thing spiral out of control but it might be well worth it. Put this out on the table. Why hide this anymore? It's not something that needs to be behind. Why do you have to be embarrassed about being pro-life? Why do you have to be embarrassed about not wanting to kill babies in the womb? Why should that be an embarrassment? Why should that be something you have to hide? Why should that be something you have to tiptoe around?

"Well, Rush, what about the polls?"

The polls? We're going to put the polls over a matter of core principle such as life? You know, let the chips fall, but it's not something you have to hide.

[wagglebee]

Most of the people in the United States are opposed (at least on some level) to abortion, the GOP has a majority in the Senate. Bush should appoint judges who openly oppose abortion, just as Clinton appointed judges who openly supported abortion.

[TitansAFC]

Can we appoint Rush?

;-)

[EagleUSA]

Yes, and Clinton is a psychopathic liar and a criminal too.

[af_vet_1981]

Can we appoint Rush?

He is not qualified.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Meinhof is qualified.

And so we have a Tyranny of the Judiciary, as I'm sure they also have in Europe.

[aumrl]

"the GOP has a majority in the Senate." AND YOUR POINT IS ?

[joem15]

OK. When do we say that Harriet Meirs is a Red Herring. We threw it out and you guys didn't like it. I planned on that. Harriet Meirs is going to withdraw her nomination. Now you are going to get the big ENCHILLADA: Janice Rogers Brown. Let's see what you geniuses do with that.

If anybody thinks that Meirs was the first choice are sadly mistaken. The lesson is: Don't play poker with George W. Bush. He will beat you everytime.

[wagglebee]

"the GOP has a majority in the Senate." AND YOUR POINT IS ?

It's about damn time they took advantage of it!

[wagglebee]

That is basically what I thought two weeks ago, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

[writer33]

Are you sure we can just ram our agenda down the throats of the Democrats?

Personally, I think we need more stealth candidates. A divisive figure would only demonstrate how different we are from liberals. We all just need to get a long.

:) HA!

[wingman1]

Man, I hope you are right.

[Zack Nguyen]

Democrats are very consisten secular humanists, at least in terms of their political agenda. Republicans do not respond with an agenda capable of counteracting this because it takes a religious argument to do so, and they have all seen what happened to Tom DeLay.

So Democrats have a perfect record for putting principled leftists on the court, while Republicans can be counted on to put stealth leftists on the court because they don't have the strength of their convictions.

Having said that, I have high hopes for Harriet Meirs. A lot of people have voluntarily put themselves out on very long ropes which will hang them if Meirs turns out to be a liberal of pro-choice.

[etradervic]

There is no reason that Bush could not nominate a Judge whose record has displayed an antipathy towards the Roe v Wade ruling.
However nominees for SCOTUS should not indicate how they would rule on a matter that will likely appear before them at a future date.
One of the main issues with the SCOTUS has been the politicization of the court (legislating from the bench, "living document," etc).
Clinton should not be emulated. This is just another case of the Left being wrong and another reason why they are out of power.

[madprof98]

Why do you have to be embarrassed about being pro-life? Why do you have to be embarrassed about not wanting to kill babies in the womb? Why should that be an embarrassment? Why should that be something you have to hide? Why should that be something you have to tiptoe around?

These are exactly the right questions. I think the thing about the Miers nomination that bothers me more than anything is the implicit acknowledgement it carries that nobody who is openly in favor of the things I personally favor could possibly get the job.

[wagglebee]

Are you volunteering?!

[RushCrush]

i agree with the stealth aspect... I don't think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for putting their agenda on the court (Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg) and then turn around and state that we want a religious person on the court.... it just don't jive with me

[newzjunkey]

We already know Miers wasn't first choice. The White House seems to admit this. In fact when O'Conner first announced, she declined to be considered when asked if she'd like to be in the pool of potential nominees.

I'd *love* Janice Rogers Brown to be appointed but, truthfully, I don't believe this is a Red Herring in the least.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You mean that the 'Rats have a double standard? No! Say it ain't so!

[I'm ALL Right!]

Why do you have to be embarrassed about being pro-life? Why do you have to be embarrassed about not wanting to kill babies in the womb? Why should that be an embarrassment? Why should that be something you have to hide? Why should that be something you have to tiptoe around?

Should be repeated!

[I'm ALL Right!]

PING

[Rennes Templar]

Unfortuntaely that's become the modus operandi of many influential Republicans.

[writer33]

No. Definitely not volunteering. :)

[writer33]

:)

[Niteranger68]

OK. When do we say that Harriet Meirs is a Red Herring. We threw it out and you guys didn't like it. I planned on that. Harriet Meirs is going to withdraw her nomination. Now you are going to get the big ENCHILLADA: Janice Rogers Brown. Let's see what you geniuses do with that.

Oh man.....Brilliant! What a way for GWB to fire up the base! Any chance Meirs volunteered for this suicide mission?

[traviskicks]

The idea of a litmus test is a horrible idea and Rush should not suggest it. The whole point of having a judge is to have them consider the facts and carefully rule on an individual case. To say they would prejudge a case before it comes to court eliminates the whole role of 'judge'. Sure, she should say she thinks the Roe ruling was incorrect, if she thinks so, and that she is 'pro-life', but she should not disparge the judgeship by setting down rulings in stone before she even hears cases...

It is a fine line, but an important one.

[bourbon]

If anybody thinks that Meirs was the first choice are sadly mistaken. The lesson is: Don't play poker with George W. Bush. He will beat you everytime.

Suuuuuuure, just keep telling yourself that.

[right-wingin_It]

Thank you Rush!

[curiosity]

If anybody thinks that Meirs was the first choice are sadly mistaken. The lesson is: Don't play poker with George W. Bush. He will beat you everytime.

I hope you're right. I doubt it, but I hope you're right.

[cdawg20]

GWB is not a fighter when it comes to domestic policy. PRoblem with most republicans is they feel they arent viewed as "compassionate" and it in touch with the common man so they cave in to democrats demands. The sad thing is they dont realize this country is more conservative than liberal and would be more respected if they just stood up for their position and put up a fight. Democrats dont have a problem doing it. I cant figure out how Republicans can be so strong on foreign policy but give in on domestic policy and those clowns on the other side wave their white flag to terrorists and hand our sovereignty to the UN but yet can dig their heels in so deep on other issues.

[Wormwood]

Now you are going to get the big ENCHILLADA: Janice Rogers Brown. Let's see what you geniuses do with that.

Personally, I'd applaud.

It would be nice for a change.

[Lunatic Fringe]

the GOP has a majority in the Senate.

Not for long. This party is going to lose a lot of fiscal conservatives because of their pandering to Christians and their refusal to cut government spending.

[bushinohio]

Pandering to Christians? How do you figure that?

[BamaGirl]

"This party is going to lose a lot of fiscal conservatives because of their pandering to Christians and their refusal to cut government spending."

Where do you think they will go?

[Defiant]

You are giving him wayyyyyy too much credit. Nice try to come up with a theory that makes Bush look smart for appointing Harriet Miers, but it doesn't fly on about 10 levels.

[SmoothTalker]

Don't you all get it? Litmus tests are only a bad thing to the MSM when Democrats have them.

[aumrl]

who said "never fight a battle you dont know you will win"?

[pageonetoo]

Rush Limbaugh walks in the footsteps of giants: George Washington, Thomas Paine and Ronald Reagan.

Rush Limbaugh walks in the footsteps of giants: Boy George, Reggie Jackson, Kate Moss.

What do they have in common? He is an entertainer. He is a philanderer. He is a drug abuser. He just happens to be a conservative.

Rush is an entertaining fellow. I have listened for years, and watched some of his tv shows. It is good to have a spokesman for the conservative movement. Thank you, Roger Ailes.

But, to compare him to the Presidents and founding fathers, is a bit of a stretch. He is an entertainer. He has done well, at running his mouth... but he has never done anything, on his own. He came on the scene, when it was ripe, for picking.

So did Newt, and the class of 1994. I guess Rush is responsible for that, as well.

Where's Marta?

[Cboldt]

The polls? We're going to put the polls over a matter of core principle such as life? You know, let the chips fall, but it's not something you have to hide.

In the case of Roe, the issue of "life" is carried along on the principle of judicial activism. Instead of couching the dialog in terms of abortion, the GOP would be well served to focus attention on how the Justice will rule.

There has been some discussion about comparing the current "Ginsberg Rule" hearings with hearings and their contents for previous nominees. I haven't studied any of the following, but it is a resource useful as a matter of comparison. What are the topics of discussion? Doe the Senator's probe for a tradictionalis appraoch, or are they mired in "issues advocacy?"

Nomination Hearings for: David H. Souter, Anthony M. Kennedy, William Hubbs Rehnquist (to CJ), Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, William H. Rehnquist (Assoc.), & Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/scourt.html

I recently had an epiphany regarding the supposed hypocricy if GOP Senators don't vote to confirm Ms. Miers, when history shows us they voted for Ginsberg. First, the "vote for a cipher" issue has baggage all it's own, and represents "guessing," not deliberation, on the part of a Senator. That is bad, per se, as I described in my first ever vanity, "Uncertainty," the Nominee.

But what about the situation where a nominee's past inclination regarding judicial restraint, conformity with the Founder's vision of jurisprudence, strict constructionism, or traditionalism - whatever you may choose for a shorthand label - is more clear? What if another Ginsberg was nominated? And it hit me like a ton of bricks.

The GOP Senators have been derilict in their duty. They are not fighting for judicial restraint or a traditionalist court. If they were, they would ask questions that probe that, and failing to get clear answers, or knowing that the nominee is an advoccate of "living Constitution" jurisprudence, the ONLY principled action to to deny advise & consent.

The fact that the GOP Senators have shrugged off their duty in the past does not justify continuing that practice. If the GOP really advocates strict constructionists, then it provides advise & consent for those, and only those. They'll win some and they'll lose some, but they shoudl be voting with THAT principle in mind, instead of deference to the President.

Deference may be okay as a "tie breaker" if a Senator is fence sitting - but a GOP Senator, who holds the line for strict construction by a sitting Justice, would not cast an AYE vote for Ginsberg, etc.

[Cboldt]

Democrats are very consisten secular humanists, at least in terms of their political agenda. Republicans do not respond with an agenda capable of counteracting this because it takes a religious argument to do so ...

Besides being a moral abomination, Roe (and Casey) is a legal abomination. But the very good legal and Constitutional arguments that support overturning Roe are swamped by the moral aruments. It is the DEMs who do this, in order to frame the dialog in terms where they win the argument.

If the argument for overturning Roe is based only on moral/religious grounds, you will lose every time.

[Cboldt]

i agree with the stealth aspect... I don't think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for putting their agenda on the court (Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg) and then turn around and state that we want a religious person on the court.... it just don't jive with me

See my two posts just above. The criticism is against the GOP for admitting an activist Justice.

The DEMs forward nominees who advocate a living Constitution approach - understandable, becuase the DEMs want to impose social change from the top down. And what do the GOP Senators do? They went along with it. I blame the GOP for not objecting to Ginsberg. That doesn't mean the GOP would win - she may still get the seat. But it does mean that the GOP let her take the seat without taking advantage of the nomination to make the argument against activist Justices, and to vote accordingly.

The DEMs have "made it political," and the GOP is not reacting "in kind."

[Cboldt]

Pandering to Christians? How do you figure that?

The Miers nomination has been cast as that. "She's an evangelical, she's 'one of us.'"

/ wink /

Support for the Miers nomination comes from two overlapping groups. With this nomination, George Bush is trading on the faith and trust of the religious right, and on the obedient loyalty of the party faithful.

[maryz]

I cant figure out how Republicans can be so strong on foreign policy but give in on domestic policy

Maybe deals on domestic policy to get support on foreign policy?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Take a look over at Tradesports where people put their money up (click on "Legal" in the box at the left). A few days ago, if you thought Miers would be confirmed, you had to bet $65 to win $35. Her prospects have diminished so much that now you only have to put up $25 to win $75. In betting parlance, she has gone from a 3 to 5 favorite to a 4 to 1 underdog, and falling fast.

[pageonetoo]

I cant figure out how Republicans can be so strong on foreign policy but give in on domestic policy? -dawg

Maybe deals on domestic policy to get support on foreign policy?

W promised a lot of things. I wish he would use the best foreign policy, a little better! Our enemies think we're weak! That includes the Dims, and all the other Pandercrats. Instead of rebuilding Flood City, we should build a couple more Carrier Groups.

The Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and the White House. The Republicans are just good at running their mouths... to get re-elected like everybody else!

[TheRobb7]

You bring up a vaild point with the TradeSports thing. It's a pretty accurate barometer on issues such as this.

One thing that is being overlooked by a lot of people is that several other candidates were asked to serve, but DECLINED because of the literal CRUCIBLE they would be put through in the Committee hearings, media scrutiny, etc.

It wears on you.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

but DECLINED because of the literal CRUCIBLE

liberal CRUCIBLE

[Sloth]

One of the most horrible ideas in history is this stupidity of it being "inappropriate" to assess judges the way we do everyone else -- by HOW THEY DO THEIR JOB.

[robomurph]

Cool picture!

I haven't seen the guns firing from that perspective. I like the shock waves in the water.

[Cboldt]

One thing that is being overlooked by a lot of people is that several other candidates were asked to serve, but DECLINED because of the literal [liberal] CRUCIBLE they would be put through in the Committee hearings, media scrutiny, etc.

First, it is only a rumor that "more qualified" candidtates dropped out. The rumor is useful to advance Ms. Miers, as she is touted as "the best that the President can get throught this Senate."

If that's the case, Ms. Miers is the best female Justice we can get - EVER - unless the Senate process is changed. Ponder that for a minute. Based on that alone, I think the "all the more qualified possibilities dropped out" story indicates a problem with the short list the President used; and does not reflect the deep pool of traditionalist female candidates.

But on to the bigger issue. Why tolerate the poisoned confirmation atmosphere created by the DEMs? They need to be called out for their despicable behavior. In my opinion, the GOP lacks the intelligence to compose a compelling argument, the moral conviction, or both, and therefore it does not make any progess against the DEMs.

The GOP is losing the war.

[skinkinthegrass]

The GOP is losing the war...appears so.. :(

[XR7]

The President gets to appoint whomever he wants.
Of course there is a litmus test (it is whatever the person doing the appointing thinks is important).
To suggest otherwise completely ignores human nature and common sense.
For instance, if you were President, would you appoint an atheist?
Or someone who believes the Constitution says you have a "right" to kill your baby?
Anyone who believes those are not valid considerations which would doom or approve any nominee for consideration is naive at best.