Posted on 05/26/2009 4:58:28 PM PDT by lewisglad
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We'll start in Chicago with Lee. Great that you called. Nice to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I think this is the perfect time for you to start your teaching tour and for Republicans to start your teaching tour with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, to explain to the American people why originalist justices are the only option because I think that attacking Sotomayor directly is going to make the Republicans look as the bad guys rather than proactively taking a step to explain why Article V of the Constitution should be the only means to amend the Constitution rather than a judicial fiat, and I want to know what you think about that.
RUSH: Well, you're asking me two things: "Should the Republican Party oppose Sonia Sotomayor?" and I will restate what I said in the first hour: Yes! Because opposing Sonia Sotomayor is how you tell the nation who Barack Obama is and isn't. That really what we're interested in having happen. Aren't we interested in having the American people figure out who it is they really voted for? Well, Sonia Sotomayor illustrates who Obama is, and that's the primary reason to oppose her because I don't think she can be stopped. She's got the votes in the Senate. So does Obama. It's a cliche, but elections have consequences. As far as my teaching tour is concerned, I'll take that under advisement. I reach a tremendous number of people via the EIB Network and the Golden EIB Microphone each and every day.
Now, you also wanted to talk about the originalists and why it is so crucial here that Republicans get the word out on her. Let me tell you why that's going to be very hard for elected Republicans to do. If you didn't hear it, let me see if we have it here in the sound bites. (muttering) Well, we don't have the exact bite. Cookie, I'm not looking for it. You don't need to give me the exact bite. But he started out, Obama did today, in making his announcement, he told a personal story that had everybody in the White House East Room crying. I mean, it's a touching personal story. It is an amazing personal story, quintessentially American. It doesn't say much about who she is, but it tells us a lot about this country. The thing about this story of hers that is really -- it is dynamic. There's no refuting it, and it's very personal, and it's very rewarding.
It's a deeply American story -- and I tell you that's going to be, first and foremost. When get to the Senate confirmation hearings, that's what people are going to hear and that's going to make it even harder for Republicans to oppose it, because Republicans stands for the American dream, the ordinary doing extraordinary things. She even used that phrase today to describe herself. I'm the first to use that phrase that I know of. "America is the place where ordinary people can become extraordinary, do extraordinary things." So that personal story of hers is going to silence a lot of Republican opposition, and that's its purpose. What needs to be said about her personal story is that it all happened during a period of time Barack Obama is ripping to shreds and criticizing tremendously.
It happened during the eighties. It happened during the Reagan years. It happened during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. It happened during the Clinton years. Now, this is important to me because Barack Obama is a president who is apologizing for America everywhere he goes. America was imperfect. It was not good. It was not just. It is now because he's been elected. But it wasn't. And yet here is this minority female Latina. She's Puerto Rican. She grew up in the south Bronx. Her father died when she was eight or nine. She was diagnosed with diabetes. As Obama said today, she was told that because of her diabetes and because of her minority status she'd never get anywhere and yet she got into Princeton and then she got into Yale Law and then she got on all these courts. She worked for Morgenthau in the DA's office in Manhattan.
She's done it all. That shouldn't have been possible in the America Obama believes in. Sonia Sotomayor, if you listen to Barack Obama, should not be. We should never have heard of her. America was imperfect and unjust -- and yet look at what she did, how she triumphed. I don't think anybody's going to get into how because it would only distract, but nevertheless she did. All of these policies there were supposedly anti-minority, all of them racism, all of the anti-womenism -- all of these isms that were supposedly preventing minorities from getting anywhere -- and Sonia Sotomayor rises to the highest level of the appellate court system all during Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush! It's not possible. So in confronting the personal story that they're going to tell about her, which will inspire some to tears...
And that story is designed to shut any critic up. "How could you oppose this woman? Have you no heart? Have you no compassion? Have you no empathy? Look at all that she's had to overcome!" So those will be the requirements. Those will be the qualifications that they say Sonia Sotomayor has. Then they'll get to her judicial record which they're going to have to kind of soft-pedal because she gets overturned all the time. She's reprimanded by other Democrat judges for not being on point, for not being constitutional. She has said in public that a judge's job is to make policy. Lady Justice is blind. You're not supposed to know the race, the sex, the gender, the income level. All of these things that a litigant has doesn't matter. Justice is blind. Her justice isn't, and neither is Obama's. So we got a very radical pick. We have a very radical president nominating a radical pick, and he's using her story to continue to convey this notion of "empathy," and that's what we need on the court. 'Cause, you know, there's so much discrimination out there, and there's so much unfairness.
There's so much majority tyranny, it's just so unfair, and we need people like Sonia Sotomayor to recognize it and to accommodate those realities in adjudicating cases. And yet with all this unfairness, all this discrimination, all of this imperfection, all the rotgut that America is, she managed to overcome it all. It shouldn't be possible, should it? So if I were a Republican on the committee, I'd acknowledge the story. I congratulate her on the story. I congratulate her and her mother, her father for raising her right and her mother for inspiring her. And then I'd point out, this isn't supposed to be possible in America prior to today, and yet look what she did. America is a great country. And then start talking about her lack of judicial qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. You can do it all. Will they? No. Because the Republican moderates are just dying to get as many Hispanic votes next election as they can. So they've been boxed in here.
Affirmative Action
People criticize Limbaugh because they don’t like his personality, but who else is speaking common sense to so many?
"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."
Sexist, racist.
Also, another cool quote from a tape from 2005:
a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
I love that hard-hitting, sharp legal insight. "I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know".
These are from an article from a certain NY paper on Drudge right now.
God help us help ourselves!
I may be wrong, but the race card is really not playing with people anymore. It’s been over done.
Obama, as Rush notes, believes that it was not possible for someone with her background to "make it" during the period she's supposed to have "made it".
If you believe Obama is a truth teller you must also believe that Sotomayer accomplished nothing and that her record is a tissue of lies concocted by PC types fearful of telling anybody what an abject failure she is.
If you don't believe Obama is a truth teller then you might think Sotomayor could actually have done some of the stuff she claimed she did.
So, does Obama tell lies or does he tell the truth. His friends say he tells the truth which means Sotomayor's record is garbage.
Sexist? Like you don’t think maybe when she’s ready to write a decision she looks first to her pudenda?
And the Republican pansies in Congress are going to let stuff this good just slide right past them.
ARRRGGGHHHH. He's right. Spineless RINOs, one and all. But, I wonder who Bama has lined up if she fails to get confirmed? Satan or Ayers?
Because foolish former GOP presidents listened to the left.
When will they realise we aren’t going to get a majority of the Hispanic vote, we can’t outpander the rats? Unless we become marxists to their socialists? And they start putting white conservatives up against a wall and shooting them all to prove their credentials? They need to be working on stemming the flood of illegals, but I guess that horse has left the barn. Damn I just made myself depressed.
Feelings, whoa whoa whoa Feelings! We have, as a nation, become a joke.
She wouldn’t have under Obama.
Maybe she sold drugs, was a catamite for Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, or a community organizer...That was somebody else.
Funny that people on here will point out and rail against the very same thing for days on end, but they have a problem when someone else says it. Sure the context of the speaker plays a role, but what is the rest of the substance of the entire talk? I don’t think it will reveal a compatriot railing against it, but the quote on its own isn’t damnation.
Her mother worked 2 jobs to send Sonia to a private Catholic high school. Wonder what Sonia thinks about Obama ditching the DC voucher program...
Republicans can’t offer criticism of any non-white/non-European because for Republicans, the speech codes and group identity politics of the left delineate their vocabulary and vernacular. The left are, of course, immune from such proscriptions (see Estrada, Thomas, et al.)
They do not need to criticise, the just need to know how she arrived at certain decisions. What was the case law, precedent or otherwise. She has been overturned already for not addressing the LAW. Her opinions are created out of thin air.
Her responsibility is to interpret. What is it she is interpreting ?? Where did it come from ?? How did she come to the opinion she did ?? What was the basis ??
This is how you attack her.
Bush appointed Gonzales and the Democrats ripped him to shreds. A Republican president appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and the Dems dragged him through the mud. Republicans should pick people that they honestly believe are good for the job because the Dems are going to still keep calling them racists no matter what they do. What the Republicans have to do when the Dems sling the mud, is to keep reminding everyone of Gonzales and Thomas and how the Democrats treated them. Republican presidents also appointed the first black Secretary of State and the first female black Secretary of State. Republicans have to keep hammering away at this, not letting Democrats misrepresent them.
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.