Rush Limbaugh Show,M-F,12NOONPM-3PM,EDT,WABC AM, June 29, 2012

The EIB Network ^ | June 29, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Biggirl]

Call The Rush Limbaugh Show program line between 12 Noon and 3PM Eastern Time at: 1-800-282-2882

E-mail Rush: ElRushbo@eibnet.com

Fax Rush at: 212-445-3963

Write a letter to Rush and mail it to:

The Rush Limbaugh Show

1270 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Join This Ping List Now! Click Here To Join this Ping List!

Image by Cool Text: Free Logos and Buttons - Create An Image Just Like This

[Clint N. Suhks]

I am wondering why Robert’s Epilepsy drugs haven’t become an issue?

[Bratch]

that is 100% correct - they are winning because they are cheating whereas we, do not cheat.

Sounds like SEC football.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Remember that 1% of your income from Roberts appreciation fluid will be paid as a penalty (tax). Is payment in kind allowed?

[SE Mom]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_CHIEF_JUSTICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-29-11-54-34

FARMINGTON, Pa. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is joking that he’ll be spending some time in “an impregnable fortress”

Roberts declined to answer a question about the landmark opinion issued Thursday. But he says he hopes the court will be remembered for “protecting equal justice under the law.”

[joesbucks]

If memory serves me correctly didn’t Rush sing the praises of Roberts during the nomination process? You know, an “our kind of guy” nominee?

[Helen]

Guess we now know why the natural born citizen cases never went anywhere. I feel like we’ve been kicked in the stomach by a fraud that is equal to obama.

[Clint N. Suhks]

FU JR!

[Will88]

Several times since the ruling I’ve thought back to the Roberts’ Senate confirmation hearings, at least the part I watched. Many marveled at how slick Roberts was at talking a great deal, but still managing to avoid revealing anything about how he might rule on future cases.

He often seemed too clever by half, or just too darn slick. And man does that seem to be confirmed many times over now. Some of Rush’s remarks today are in that vein. Some people are just too clever, and who knows whether they use that to reach a clear objective, or just because they enjoy being clever.

I’m afraid we will see more of how clever Roberts is in the future.

[Girlene]

Agree, Anti-Hillary.

Rush should be t’d off, as any good conservative should be. This is too monumental to just move on from like the NRP tried to do by asking for money (based on that stupid Roberts’ quote).

It is appropriate that Rush is continuing to discuss the ramifications, the idiocy behind the decision making, etc.

Rush is doing what Rush does best - he’s explaining Conservative ideas/principles (or the lack thereof in this instance), and the plain unConstitutionality of what the USSC did.

Pure fraud is right! We have no right to due process is exactly right!

[LachlanMinnesota]

The only advantage I see to this decision (except that it should have been all thrown out), is that the passage of a bill to remove the tax does not need a 60 vote super-majority to pass, and merely a 51% vote is all that is needed. Is that correct?

[NoLibZone]

Now Rush is ranting that McCain lost.

Yes Rush we are living the consequences of our decisions.

Don’t fret Rush , undoing the damage done by the US’s single most socialist president will be easy.

Egypt pfft.
Obamacare pfft
Fast and Furious pfft
Kagan, Sotamyor- easy

All can be undone easily Rush- Dont fret!

[Yosemitest]

Rush, comment on this:

SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING
July 20, 2005 by Ann Coulter

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up
and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is.
Other than that, he is a blank slate.
Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada.
Oh, yeah ... We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts.
Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives.
Never.
Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days
looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Will he let us vote?

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire
and avoid "womenfolk" ?

Does he trust democracy?
Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them "constitutional rights" ?

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him:
They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion
during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations.
He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America.
Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-'93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below.
In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases
do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying:
"Hey, I never said the guy was innocent.
I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted.
We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.

I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee's "talking points" on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

"In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued � free of charge � before the D.C. Court of Appeals
on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982."

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform,
which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress).
But now apparently Republicans want to pretend we're the party of welfare queens!
Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too.

Finally, let's ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial.
That's just unnatural.

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

It's especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there's no question but that Roberts is smart.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, he'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court
and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever.
It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell.
Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect.
But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections � seven of the last 10!

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now � why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork ...
and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don't hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lifetime tenure on the high court.
And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights � liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People for the American Way.
It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism,
and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats' own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block "judges who would roll back civil rights."
Borking is over.

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground � substance.
He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes.
Or maybe he won't.
The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.

[rodguy911]

Rush really explained things well as he always does. Basically, we have an activist judge who took law that was before him to be interpreted and he rewrote it to favor one side over the other.

Even those making the case that he went the"its a tax direction" and now we can get rid of it with only 51% and the rats have to run on obamacare as a tax and not a mandate is hardly enough to justify rewriting a law instead of interpreting it as constitutional or not.

That is not the purview of any judge especially a Supreme court judge. My understanding is they are supposed to interpret the law that is before them not rewrite it to favor one side or the other.

Huge judicial error.

After that the obvious question begs why, why, why did Roberts chose the path he chose.

IT also questions why and how Judges are chosen and how many hidden agendas there may or may not be.You only have to look at left wing picks to ask many questions.

[skinkinthegrass]

"Can I buy some stock? You are gonna get real rich real quick!
By the way my bottle of Roberts appreciation fluid is already on the way.!"*LOL! / Chuckling / Snickering*
..of course; shipping thru UPS/FEDEX is
recommended, to bypass the EPA.

[thouworm]

You have to ask what motivates Roberts.

I think Rush’s point is that Roberts basically rewrote the bill in favor of the left so Obamacare could be passed. My question is why?

Been doing some research this morning, although still numb from shock.

"What motivates Roberts?"

I think Rush’s point is that Roberts basically rewrote the bill in favor of the left so Obamacare could be passed. My question is why?

I haven't seen this anywhere (so I could be royally wrong), but I smell the stench of Laurence Tribe, the 10th justice--- mentor to Obama, Roberts, and first-name-basis buddy of Kagan's. Roberts was judicially seduced.

[rodguy911]

He was not alone. Everyone on the right thought Roberts was the ultimate pick. Wow were we wrong!

[LachlanMinnesota]

The only advantage I see to this decision (except that it should have been all thrown out), is that the passage of a bill to remove the tax does not need a 60 vote super-majority to pass, and merely a 51% vote is all that is needed. Is that correct?

[Girlene]

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is joking that he’ll be spending some time in “an impregnable fortress”

Wise decision, funny boy.

Seriously, when I heard this decision come out yesterday, I thought, he better have some security. There will be some angry people out there and nothing should happen to one of our justices.

[Political Junkie Too]

Rush, What is it with Republicans that they are afraid to exercise the power they are given? Democrats never seem to have a problem flexing their muscles. In fact, they always over-reach.

Republicans cower from power. They would rather snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Just see Boehner's "no gloating" letter.

There are four top leadership roles in the federal government: the President, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Why was Roberts afraid to use the power he was given? Why is Boehner afraid to use the power he was given? Why will McConnell be afraid to use the power he'll be given if we take back the Senate?

Why do they do this?

-PJ

[SE Mom]

I think that is correct- because it was passed that way..remember all the BS about reconciliation..

I just read Sen. Sessions said we only need 51 votes.