Rush Limbaugh: Roberts Destroys Left's View of Justice in Just 44 Seconds

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 9/15/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[wagglebee]

I would give anything to have heard Roberts say:
"If by "big guy" you mean a US senator who gets drunk and drives off a bridge causing a woman to die, then no, I don't think the "big guy" should win.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL...

We should tape the democrats then plug in our own responses. It would be a real hoot!

[A CA Guy]

Boy, can you imagine the war after this on the next nomination.
I hope Bush gets a good strong smart conservative for that as well.
In addition, there are a couple of leftists that are not that well in the bench, and it wouldn't hurt if one of them pulls a Rehnquist and that Bush makes a major shift in the courts.

[mikemikemikecubed]

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.

[NonLinear]

bump

[ImpBill]

What has struck me about this whole process is that Chief Justice Roberts isn't at all "slick". He is honest and by any measurement more intelligent and cool under fire than the entire combination of Democrat US Senators trying to trip him up.

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.

[Reactionary]

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.

[prophetic]

I really dont think of the way that Kerry/Edwards would want it was for the alleged "LITTLE GUY" to get ANYTHING!!!

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.

[Havoc]

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.

[Ronzo]

I've never had more fun listening to Rush than I did today...I only listened for a few minutes, but I did get to hear this segment in it's entirety. I was practically bouncing up & down in my minivan with glee!

"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.

[bfree]

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.

[nicmarlo]

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.

ping!

[AckyQuack]

ping

[Bryher1]

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.

[Balding_Eagle]

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.

It stands because that's what you have chosen to believe. I'd say that a lot of us are smarter.

[G.Mason]

"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?"

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

[uncbob]

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

[jdm]

"It stands because that's what you have chosen to believe. I'd say that a lot of us are smarter."

"Yeah, ya big dummy!" :)

[good1]

a nominee who has stated on the record that abortion is settled law?

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?)