So, does anyone have a summary of what he said?
I want to know too.
Summary of Rush's comments:
Miers was a bad pick. Should have picked a hard-rock, proven conservative. Would have been better to have had the "fight" with the dems so they could be exposed to the American people for what they really believe. Need more than just a "vote" on the SC, need a true conservative who will change the culture on the SC. There's a reason the dems are happy with this pick. This could come back to haunt us in 2006.
1)The Meir's pick is a lost opportunity, but that's not to say there won't be other opportunities and she may very well turn out to be a good pick.
2)Many people have worked hard for many years to get the Dems out of the house, senate and win the Presidency and they had accomplished that. The last bastion of liberalism was the Supreme court. It's a 'liberal culture' that Bush had the opportunity to break and he may have thrown that opportunity away.
3)He should have nominated someone like Janice Rogers Brown and let the Kennedy's, Schumer's and the like throw a hissy fit in front of the nation thus educating the voters on was the Democrat party really stands for.
I paraphrased (read my previous comments, this thread ^), BUT the show is rebroadcast in just a few more hours, at least here where I am, digital channel, PST.
Rush started by explaining his comment from earlier this week that this was a pick from weakness. I believe everybody has heard this before and he made newer, more insightful comments so I won't dwell on his early comments too much other than to summarize them by stating that he believes that there are so many other slam dunk candidates that Bush could have picked, JRB, Luttig, Jones, etc.., who would have brought the debate over filibusters and ideologies and where this country should be heading that nominating Miers was a disappointment.
He then went on to explain that we have to change not just the makeup of the court but the culture, and he advocated continuing to take the fight to the democrats because it will expose them for who they are. Greta clearly seemed stuck on the fact that 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans and were "Republican judges" themselves. Rush began to explain why the culture had to be changed and brought up citing foreign precedent as a danger. Greta queried whether Kennedy, a Republican appointee, started that whole notion, and Rush emphatically stated, again, that this is exactly why the culture has to be changed, and why it will take a rock-ribbed conservative to put the ideology discussion before the country to show the democrats, who always get away with coming off as something other than what they really are, as what they really are and what they really stand for. He wants the American people to see these fine jurists and show the country how the democrats villify them.
Perhaps his best line of the night was when he observed that Steven Breyer was on George Steph's show on Sunday hawking some book and trying to sell the idea that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in an originalist manner because we now have things that the founding fathers could not have imagined, like automobiles and the internet. Rush was outraged by this position, and he explained that the founding fathers put the constitutional amendment process in place precisely for the purpose of adapting to changing circumstances, and that WE THE PEOPLE should not be read into WE THE JUDGES for the sake of the convenience of people like Breyer to tell the rest of us what the law is based on his own notion of what our public policy should be. Rush even said that Breyer would go to Mars to find law if he could. I laughed but he's absolutely right. Where exactly would Breyer go and where would he stop? Nobody knows for sure, but its clearly somewhere far outside American jurisprudence and that is very, very dangerous.
In sum Rush is not passing judgment on Miers as a nominee. However, he vies her nomination as a missed opportunity to really put the debate over the SCOTUS before the people, by putting into place the fight that the democrats have threatened, and to change the culture of the court by bringing pressure from outside and influence from within. He believes that its a fight worth fighting, and he's confident we'd win, again. By not picking that fight, he believes conservatives will suffer in 06 but its too early to tell in 08.
I thought he was as sharp as he's ever been, and I agreed with every word.
The basic gist of it to me was, this was a great oppurtunity missed to educate America as to what the left is really all about! If Bush had named a staunch conservative like ,Brown, or Luttig The left would have gone nuts! We could have gotten into a great debate about all this. By Bush appointing a luke warm conservative she'll probably sail right through! We'll never get to have that fight and expose the left for what they really are! Also many consevatives have been working hard some for over 40 years to get the courts more right. Now they feel let down cause instead of a sure thing like a Janice Rodgers Brown or Luttig, they will once again be on pins and needles hoping and praying she is a real conservative not a Suder or O'conner and this didn't need to happen Bush could have gotten a Luttig or Brown in pretty easily now that we have 55 votes in the Senate. That was the gist of it to me. We just don't know about this woman!