Hey, great question mike ... whatever.
Call him tomorrow and ask him. It's Open Line Friday
Need the number? It's 1-800-282-2882
Posted on 09/15/2005 5:32:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
RUSH: All right, to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts -- and again, folks, it's crucial, while you watch the media reveling in the president's poll numbers and awaiting breathlessly (panting) his speech tonight from Jackson Square in New Orleans, the fact is that his nominee to the Supreme Court is running rings around the best and brightest the left has to offer today and this is reshaping the judiciary, the Supreme Court, and this is the branch of government the left is most concerned about. I know they're covering the Roberts hearings but there's nothing they can do about it. This guy is too smart even for the best and brightest in the media. Let's give you an example from Senator Dick "Turban" today. I think there have been two, between yesterday and today... The Democrats I think -- who are, by the way, meeting in private this afternoon with their special interest groups. The Democrats have put on a different face from one day to the next. They started out being confrontational and argumentative and that didn't get them anywhere and I think that was to appease the special interest groups that do all the donating on the left. Today, it was more toward, "You're not telling us who you are. You're really holding back on us. You know, you really haven't been forthcoming at all. You're getting away with a lot. You're getting away with murder here, judge. I mean, you're not telling us a thing."
They're trying to set up the notion that this guy is too slick. So Turban says, "I said at the outset that I thought one of the real measures as to whether or not you should be on a court goes back to a point Senator Simon had made: 'Would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it?'" Now, you people on the left -- well, everybody -- I want you to listen to this question; I want you to listen to this answer, because this is the best education on what the role of a judge and the court is that you will ever hear, outside of from me, because here's Durbin saying, "Would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it? When you are defending gays and lesbians who are being restricted in their rights by the Colorado amendment, you were trying from my point of view to expand freedom. That to me is a positive thing. That's my personal philosophy and point of view. But then, when you say if the state would have walked in the door first to restrict freedoms, I would have taken them as a client, too, I wonder, where are you? Beyond loyalty to the process of law, how do you view this law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? It is important enough for you to say in some instances, 'I won't use my skills as a lawyer because I don't believe that that's a cause consistent with my values and beliefs.' That's what I'm asking." So he's asking, "Will you punt? Will you punt on your view of the law and stand up for the downtrodden and the minorities in this country who don't have a chance because the way this country is put together? Will you put aside what you think the law says, and give those people a break?" And here's the answer.
ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
RUSH: Slam-dunk! Senator Turban, take him out in his coffin. He has just been nailed shut. In this little 44-second answer, Judge Roberts just destroyed the whole concept of the left's view of justice. He just -- in 44 seconds, folks, he just -- destroyed the left wing's view of justice, which is, "The law is irrelevant. Make new law if you have to, to help the little guy. Whether the law favors the little guy or not, the little guy deserves it; the big guy deserves to get screwed simply because he is the big guy. He deserves to get screwed because the way America is structured, it isn't fair. We have haves and have-nots, and there's no advance for the have-nots to ever become anything other than have-nots," and of course this is not the way America is structured at all. We have the have-nots who become multimillionaires all over the place. People move in and out of different income groups constantly many times during the course of their lives. The view of America by the self-loathing left is one of inherent unfairness.
Somehow the haves, the big guys, got it by luck, or they were appointed, or they somehow had advantages that the rest of us don't, and once we're not in that group we are forever shut out -- and so the purpose, as far as the left is concerned, is to balance this, by screwing the people who are unfairly the big guys. Because America is basically at its heart unjust, the way it's structured. This is what they believe, and so their view of the court has been: "If the law doesn't favor the little guy, rewrite the law from the bench. If the law doesn't favor the little guy, then rewrite it from the court. If the law doesn't favor the little guy and you can't find a way in American law to favor the little guy, go look at foreign law. Whatever you have to do to build up the little guy because that's the only way to make it fair," and Judge Roberts just in 44 seconds said, "Un-uh. I take an oath to defend, uphold and protect the Constitution, and if the Constitution says the big guy wins, the big guy wins." I want you to listen to this answer again, folks. It's audio sound bite #2, Mike. In 44 seconds he has just obliterated the entire world view of justice held by the left.
ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
LOL...
We should tape the democrats then plug in our own responses. It would be a real hoot!
I listened to Rush Tuesday and maybe a bit Friday, if I remeber correctly. He continues to say Robert is running circles around the Democrats. Is that an attempt on Rush's part to save face for a nominee who has stated on the record that abortion is settled law? I mean, saying abortion is settled law can be seen as saying he won't vote to overturn it. Now there are some caveats for those of us who truely understand the principle of stare decisis, but my point stands.
bump
He is taking them to school on every issue using an originalist conservative philosophy and education and they are totally flustered.
And I am loving it.
For the single issue folks on the fringe right, you might get disappointed in Justice Roberts in the future, but I am so thrilled that we are going to finally have another voice on the Court that will uphold our Constitution precisely as the founders intended.
The trouble is with liberals that the "little guy" keeps getting smaller and smaller. Pretty soon, he'll be a Golem with a law degree and an incurable case of primary narcissism.
The Democrats and their legal cronies are just out to build a bunch of mansions off the heads of ordinary citizens while have the rest of America litigate each other to death - by which only the lawyers gain $$$$$.
As I try to explain to my family that the reason that prescription drugs and healthcare costs so damm much is because these lawyers setup 'victims of medical malpractice' to prey of doctors & drug companies to get fat awards which in turn drives up all medical costs.
All it takes sometimes is to have one guy in the right to make all the "popular" thinking look like dog dung. I like the guy already.
"The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."
This is grand slam to leftist idiots everywhere. Rule of Law trumps special interests. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
I don't think abortion is the ONLY important matter in this country and both the left and the right want to pick people based on ONE issue. I think that is wrong.
ping!
ping
I watched most of this thing and I don't think Roberts ever said Roe was settled law. I believe he said it deserves respect as a precedent, just as all prior decisions deserve respect as precedent. I could have missed something, but I thought the only people who spoke about Roe being settled law were the questioners.
It stands because that's what you have chosen to believe. I'd say that a lot of us are smarter.
Hey, great question mike ... whatever.
Call him tomorrow and ask him. It's Open Line Friday
Need the number? It's 1-800-282-2882
Proper answer would also have been
It is not the job of the court to decide whether the big small or middle guy wins
That is the job of those who make the laws and that should NOT be the judges
"Yeah, ya big dummy!" :)
Your post gives me an opportunity to respond to this statement by Roberts.
I like Roberts. I do hope he is confirmed, although I would have preferred Scalia as Chief Justice. However, I would like to ask Roberts that if he regards Roe as "settled law," how would he regard the laws of 50 states that stated that abortion was illegal. I am sure that those laws were on the books longer than Roe has been. Were not they "settled law?"
If a law is bad (unconstitutional) it needs to be struck down no matter how long it as been in force.
Just my $.02 worth. (Where do I send the bill?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.