Author Topic: Rush: We're Back to Nine People in Black Robes Deciding Our Fate, Which Is Why There's a Tea Party in Politics  (Read 156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 264,088

We're Back to Nine People in Black Robes Deciding Our Fate, Which Is Why There's a Tea Party in Politics
June 30, 2014

RUSH: We're still back, however, to the thing that we've all talked about on this program for years.  Here we have two cases Democrat, and everybody else breathlessly awaits what nine people who wear black robes are going to say.  And whatever those nine people say is final, fini, that's it.  And it's awfully precarious.  Somebody asked me today, "So are you expecting any Supreme Court vacancies this term, Rush? Do you expect any of them to resign?"

I said, "Gee, I hope none of ours."  If one of the libs resigns, okay, Obama gets to name a replacement lib.  No change in the balance.  If one of our side resigns, then that's a different ball game altogether.  It's like the First Amendment.  Freedom of religion.  The fact that even gets to the Supreme Court is appalling to me.  I understand it, both legally and intellectually, but it's still appalling that it comes down to this.  That we have a president who looks at the Constitution and bulldozes it.  Sometimes he tries to finesse his way around it, other times just finesses it.

So most every day is spent on defense.  You get up every day and you see next what aspect, what tradition, what institution of our great country is under assault now.  And so all the energy is spent on defending things that ought not need a defense 'cause the Constitution is what it is.  But the fact is there are people that don't like it. The fact is people think the Constitution is far too limiting on them, and those are people who think the government's not big enough, and the government doesn't have enough power.  And they resent deeply fact that the Constitution limits only government and does not limit the people.  They want to replace it, or amend it, change it however so that the Constitution finally spells out what government can do, not what government can't do.  It really, really bugs 'em.  So they mount these all out assaults.

This is why push-back is so important, and it's why when there isn't any push-back -- I'm talking about political push-back. When there's no political leadership trying to stand up and defend all these traditions and institutions that are under assault, it's why you end up with a Tea Party, which really isn't a party.

Oh, by the way, speaking of the Tea Party, I didn't even intended to get to this today.  There's an editorial today in the Washington Times.  Now, everybody assumes the Washington Times, for better or for worse, is at least, in terms of media, conservative.  There's a huge editorial, signed editorial, an op-ed, I guess, that is devoted to the premise that the Tea Party is dead, and that's good.  It's about freaking time.  And the Tea Party died in the Thad Cochran election.  That was it.  That proves the Tea Party doesn't exist, it never did exist. The Tea Party may have been good when it started, but then too many people tried to commandeer it for their own personal promotional reasons.

Sarah Palin is cited, a couple of other people cited.  So the Tea Party, which is a grassroots organization, really wasn't even a party, was just a massive collection of individuals has now been corrupted, and they've entered the political fray, and they couldn't even beat Thad Cochran.  This piece does not even talk about the shenanigans that took place with the Republicans getting out the vote of Democrats in a Reverse Operation Chaos.

But the point is that we get up every day and we have to defend what we think are never-ending assaults on the traditions and institutions which have defined this country's greatness.  I don't care if 80% of the country doesn't know what they are.  You know, I don't care if there's a lot of ignorance.  I don't really care.  You know, I've been hearing a lot of, "You know, Rush, the people of tired of political fighting. They don't want it anymore. It's a new age now.  Look at the kids.  The kids, with them it's just tolerance.  You know, everybody's fine, everybody's okay, and this stuff, you know, you're never gonna win it, and if it doesn't work it's gonna fix itself. Obamacare will fix itself.  We don't need all this constant bickering, constant fighting. Look around, you know, take any town, 80% of the people that live there don't care.  They don't want to be involved. They don't like the fight. They just want to live their lives and be left alone."

Well, that's fine, but the fact that 80% may not care or might not have even been educated to know why they should care doesn't mean that you just cave and give up.  I mean, every day is spent trying to educate, trying to inform, trying to influence, no question, and trying to stop.  We haven't even gotten around to advancing an agenda, and we have to get to the Supreme Court on something that's already in the Constitution.  It does wear people out.  I fully understand that, but if 80% or if the current generation, the Millennials, if they don't care, why should that be gospel?  "They don't like to fight, Rush, they just don't want to mess with it anymore. This left-right paradigm doesn't exist anymore for people.  It's a losing battle."

I wonder how many people at the time of the nation's founding had that kind of an attitude.  "I don't want to mess with this. I don't want to go to war.  I'm happy here as it is.  The British aren't gonna do anything to us unless we provoke 'em.  We don't have to do anything."  It's just a constant battle, and it's always going to be, always has been. The history of the country is it's always a minority of really committed people who are fighting tyranny, who are fighting the natural inclination of government to grow and amass and wield power. 


RUSH:  Throughout American history, it has been (at the beginning) a minority who fought for, in this case, independence.  If there were polls back in the days the founding, they probably would have found a majority opposed to it. They didn't want the hassle, didn't want to put up with it.  But this is what leadership is all about.  It's undeniable.

Some people just don't want to face it. It's too hard; it requires commitment and involvement.  It requires judgments, and a lot of people are not comfortable making judgments.  They don't want to be judged, and they're not comfortable making judgments.  Certainly (depending on places such as where they live or where they work), they do not want to be thought of as political.

I think that's one of the things that is happening in our culture right now is there's a whole negative to politics for whatever reason. There's any number of them.  But if you say that your political orientation or views or energy is why you favor or oppose something, a lot of people are just gonna reject it.  But if you say it's "cultural," that you care about people, then they'll listen to you and think that you care.

It's a fascinating thing.  All this evolution is constant that is taking place in the country. It transforms and reforms, but it requires people that stay focused. It requires people that stay committed in order to provide the leadership, and eventually get the 80% that don't care at some point to pay attention -- at least a little.  Because it is they for whom everything is being fought. 


RUSH:  Alexis de Tocqueville, when he was touring America in the 1830s, said that all Americans wanted to talk about was politics.  They were consumed with it.  It's not an abnormal thing.  What's abnormal is more and more people tuning out of it -- and, of course, there are reasons. 


RUSH: Now, I don't know whether these rulings are narrow or not.  Time is gonna tell us this, , you know, what future legal cases spring up from these rulings, what behavior results in the workplace will determine many interpretations.  But there is something here that is conclusive.  Even if you want to call these rulings narrow, can somebody explain to me what constitutional argument Barack Obama has advanced, what did he win in any of these?  These are narrow rulings, what did Obama win?  Nothing.

Obama is taking it on the chin.  Obama is 0-for-13, and this may be 0-for-15 now, with these two cases, and some of those, he's 0-for-12, 0-for-13 last week with unanimous Supreme Court rulings against him.  He has run up against the Constitution several times this past week and been rebuked by the court, whether unanimously or whether by 5-4 decisions.

So narrow or not, you cannot take away the fact it's been a pretty good week for the Constitution.  And narrow or not, you cannot deny that it's been a pretty bad week for the community-organizer-in-chief, because he is now reduced to saying (imitating Obama), "Well, I'll just do an executive order. I'm gonna do what I want anyway.  If they won't -- I'll just do it myself."  And thereby exposing his beliefs and his strategy at the same time.

All these people in Washington, they take an oath to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution.  And therefore, the Constitution was defended and protected in two rulings today. So Obama and the boys take that oath, they ought to be happy, right?  However, they aren't. 


Support the USO

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo