So Christine O’Donnell is being ridiculed for asking Chris Coons where in the Constitution is found the idea of “wall of separation of church and state”. Liberals always like to throw this phrase around, as if it’s actually in the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, it is not. And I think it is important to remind people just whom liberals are quoting when they bring up the “wall of separation” idea. The following is from an interview done on the Rush Limbaugh program in January 2008 with Mark Levin:
LEVIN: I mean, you have everything from Santa Claus and Christmas trees. We have a court they couldn’t muster together a majority to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance on the merits of what’s in the Pledge of Allegiance — and let’s look at that for a second. The “wall of separation.” This is annoying to a lot of people and very upsetting. The Framers did not want a government religion. They did not want what they had in England, where everybody is taxed to support that religion and has to be a member of that religion or they’re punished, and so we’ve reached the point now where it’s been twisted and turned to mean what? If I don’t like what’s on public land and it bothers me, then I have a constitutional right to sue and get an ACLU lawyer and have it removed. Well, that’s not what the Constitution says.
Now, who’s Hugo Black? Hugo Black was appointed by FDR. Before that he was a senator. Before that he was for a couple years an active member of the Klan, and after he became an active member of the Klan, he was a lawyer, a very good lawyer for some Klan members who committed very violent acts, including one who killed a Catholic priest.
Now, when he came on the court, I don’t know that he lost all those viewpoints, but in this particular decision involving public monies that incidentally would go to Catholic school children to help transport them to school, Black snuck this language into the decision: wall of separation, strict wall of separation. Now, that’s not in the Constitution. That’s nowhere in the Constitution. Black put it in the Constitution — excuse me — put it in this decision.
So now when all these pseudo-civil libertarians are running around saying, you know, “separation of church and state,” I think our audience should remind them: You’re not quoting Jefferson; you’re quoting Hugo Black, the former Klansman!
Of course, it should not surprise anyone that liberals side with a former Klansman. Afterall, they revered former Klansman Robert Byrd so much that they elected him to the U.S. Senate and kept him in office for decades.
Here is more from the interview: Men in Black — Part I
Also see this great post by Bob Ellis at The Dakota Voice: Church and State: Another MSM Hatchet Job
Here’s Rush today on this issue:
RUSH: That’s not in the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what’s really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn’t know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!
So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O’Donnell does not know what’s in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words “separation of church and state,” and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall “establish” one. The United States government cannot proclaim, “This is a Christian nation.” It cannot proclaim, “This is a Jewish state,” cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I’ve been alive.
To get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life. It’s to try to say that the Constitution prohibits God, that’s what they want the interpretation of the First Amendment to be. The Constitution does not prohibit God. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents. We are all “endowed by our Creator.” The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was where were these people fleeing? England! The Church of England. Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced. Pure and simple, he wanted to get a divorce. Religion said, “No.” “Okay, I’m going to make my own religion. Screw you! I’m gonna behead somebody. Screw you!” They were fleeing religious persecution. The scary thing is that a bunch of dummkopf, dingleberry law students and audience at a law school laughed at the correct portrayal of what’s in the Constitution.
Christine O’Donnell may be as “stupid” as Justice Scalia. You want to know what he said about it? Justice Scalia: “In holding that the establishment clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with nary a mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion.” That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the establishment clause to suggest that God can’t be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.
That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public. The Constitution doesn’t say it. Christine O’Donnell was right. Chris Coons couldn’t name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. (interruption) Christine O’Donnell is… (interruption) Well, does she…? Snerdley says that Christine O’Donnell’s not slick; she doesn’t know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs. I guess not if you want to look at it that way. The guy says establishment of church and state. She says, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” She knows full well it’s not. It’s not that she’s not slick enough. She’s assuming that everybody is as smart as she is. She’s assuming that everybody’s as informed as she is. That’s the mistake many of us conservatives make: We assume everybody knows what we know. We assume everybody is as informed as we are. That’s why I say it was really scary that these lamebrains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.
A-freaking-men to this:
Exit Question: Who the hell cares if she thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?
Coons never met a tax increase he did not like, and I am supposed to believe that one of the most important issues in the DELAWARE Senate race is some evangelical hobby horse that has zero chance of even being considered in Delaware or in the Department of Education.
WTF? She can be a snakehandling speaking-in-tongues charismatic wacko for all I care. Is she going to fight tax increases? Is she a solid vote against Obamacare?
On the Howard Kurtzian other hand: She should have just blown off the question and come back with something like “this creationism stuff is just a distraction from the real issue of how we get the Federal government out of our schools. That is something that I, as a Senator, can impact. Creationism should be decided by the local school district….”
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at October 19, 2010 02:08 PM
The context is bad. It sounds like O’Donnell was defending the teaching of creationism as science. That’s not going to attract a lot of moderates either.Posted by: Cicero at October 19, 2010 01:39 PM
If these so called moderates are going to vote for a Marxist this year because of an establishment clause issue, then they need to get a frickin’ clue.
Posted by: Oldcat at October 19, 2010 02:07 PM
BRAVO and another A-freaking-men to this:
Can we maybe just face it? O’Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate. Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that’s not much comfort. The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.<<
That already happened during the last presidential election, and yet this very site declared that not pulling the lever for McCain and not overlooking his tendency to trample fellow Republicans on his way across the aisle to caucus with the democrats were acts just short of treason. I would like to see a little of that, er…support thrown the way of actual conservative candidates. If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O’Donnell for 2 damn weeks.
Posted by: Kerry at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM
I am 100% in agreement with this as well. To anyone with a lick of common sense, it is obvious that the Left brings up these issues (“separation of church and state”, Intelligent Design/Creationism, etc) to distract from the actual important issues. However, if the American electorate is stupid enough to fall for this BS from Democrats, then we get what we deserve. The Democrats will stop pulling this BS once the American electorate finally punishes them for doing it.
What is noxious is this whole [f-ing] subject. So with 10% unemployment, deflation, crippling gubmint debt, Li’l Barry and the Demotards more than quadrupling the deficit in under two years, Obama’s socialized medicine destroying people’s medical coverage, mountains of new regulations from the EPA et al., massive voter fraud, the prospect of cap-and-tax enacted through executive order… this debate and the tools who sponsored it decided it’s a dandy time to have a bull session on religion in government?
Delaware. My God… it’s full of stupid.
Posted by: George Orwell at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM
Unfortunately, it’s not just Delaware. The Democrats and MF-ing media would pull this BS tactic anywhere in the nation they felt it would work. They have been doing it for decades. Rarely do Democrats ever focus on the actual issues of the economy and foreign policy, and when they do, they lie and mislead people. Until the American electorate stops falling for this BS from Democrats, they’re going to keep doing it.
I’m not sure what pisses me off more: the fact that 14 GOP Senators are going to vote to approve of Judge Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court or the fact that some conservatives are quite alright with this.
I’m too damn pissed at BOTH of those issues to gather my emotions and comment rationally on them, so I am glad I came across two comments which echo my thoughts pretty well:
Either she lied to the Senators or her beliefs now are suddenly different from what they have been her entire adult life. The Republicans could have and should have called her a liar to her face and told her that her lack of ethics (lying) disqualifies her for the Supreme Court. Period. If that would have been too harsh they could have disqualified her for any of the following reasons:
-Her membership in La Raza
-Her discriminatory behavior towards white men.
The Republicans should have stood up for us. Instead they caved, as usual. So Obama gets his Hispanic Racist on the Court and the Court moves one step closer to a society where your skin color determines your rights. It’s important to note here that according to Sotomayor, white men have fewer rights than blacks did back unde the seperate but equal days.
Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at July 17, 2009 12:13 PM
Nope, sorry, not gonna be OK with this. It’s the SUPREME COURT. No removal possible. Her views are horrific and the stupidass 14 will join the 8 eternally damned shitheads in the House who voted for cap ‘n’ tax. She will legislate from the bench, and legislate very badly. I submit that this should have been fought hammer and sickle. What the hell are people “saving up the fight” for? Actual gulags? It’s too late by then.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:13 PM
I am really getting sick and damn tired of conservatives accepting the BS unfair playing field on which conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats play. They accept that Democrats can lie, cheat, smear, ridicule to their hearts content with NO consequences whatsoever. YET, when Conservatives or Republicans tell the TRUTH and present FACTS, we are painted as racists, bigots and sexists… and conservatives accept that!??!
WTF. Seriously. W.T.F.
Awesome. Glad to see I’m not the only one who is pissed the fook off here:
I e-mailed the NRSC and invited them to taste my ass. And they scratch their head and balls in wonder… why don’t conservatives donate money to our great cause? I told them I hope a 3rd party rises out of all this back slappin horsesh*t. I’m tired of these good ol boys punching conservatives right in the puss followed by a f*ck you very much.
Posted by: Sparky at July 17, 2009 12:17 PM
“Forgot to add: And she lied under oath and she keeps getting overturned AND I bet she doesn’t look good in black.”
What a lot of normal people forget is, lying isn’t lying to these rat-bastards. Lying is actually “revolutionary truth”… as in, it’s perfectly OK to lie as long as you’re advancing your goals while you do it. You may notice that even formerly respectable liberal pundits will defend a lying liar to the end as long as he or she supports the liberal positions being espoused.
Posted by: ATNorth at July 17, 2009 12:18 PM
Thank you both. And as far as the candy assed view of playing the politics “smart” on this one, bulls**t. It’s that kind of crap that got us where we are today. Stand up and be a statesman fer cryin’ out loud.
Posted by: teej at July 17, 2009 12:19 PM
F*ckin’ A. EXACTLY:
If you’re worried about pointing out bald-faced lies because you’ll be called a racist, what’s the point of questioning anything at all?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 17, 2009 12:20 PM
Another good point here by Vic. Let’s see, the GOP spends their time exposing how Sotomayor is an incompetent lying, racist POS, BUT, then, despite that, turn around and vote to appoint her to the US Supreme Court? And that’s called good, smart politics? Give me a freaking fooking break here. That’s called COWARDICE. And is EXACTLY the reason no one freaking respects Republicans. Not the media, not the Left and not conservatives. PERIOD. Give me someone who FIGHTS and calls out the Left, the media and the Democrats on their utterly despicable BS and THAT will be a statesman I will support to the death.
Drew while I agree that they did about all they could in the questioning and she did come across as a liar and an AA incompetant they still should NOT vote for her.
That defeats the entire purpose of making her look stupid and it continues the practice of “playing” nice while your enemy stabs you in the gut and laughs at you.
Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2009 12:24 PM
My sentiments exactly:
See, this is why so many of us feel dispirited, disenfranchised, and without recourse. Those who purport to represent us aren’t fighting back on these poobags. At all. To my knowledge, NO ONE has called her out on her perjury.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:29 PM
Bingo. As I said at the beginning of this post, upon reading DrewM’s post, I was both immensely pissed the hell off and completely dispirited as well. I didn’t know whether to be mad as hell or depressed and broken. And not just because the GOP are a bunch of COWARDS, but the added fact that DrewM and some others think that this was “inevitable” and we should just sit back and accept this status quo once again.
BULLSH*T. ANY GOP member voting ‘yes’ on this racist, incompetent, lying sack of sh*t judge in UNACCEPTABLE. PERIOD. Can they stop her from being approved? No. Fine. That, I accept, because the American people are utter fools for giving the despicable Democrats so much power. BUT, that does not mean that ANY Republican should be voting “YES” for Judge Sonia ‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor to represent the nation on the United States Supreme Court. Not.at.all. And anyone who does so is a cowardly, despicable POS.
Anyone who points out the fact that someone is a racist, incompetent lying bastard and then supports the promotion of that person has absolutely NO integrity whatsoever. None.
Amen to this:
It’s not just the Rs on the committee, DrewM. You are correct that the questioners did well. But no one outside of those of us who give two sh*ts were even aware that the takedown occurred. To 99% of the country, this story is “First Hispanic (And She’s a GIRL! Who was POOR!) Nominated to SC by The One.” Her actual views are barely out there. The firefighter case alone should have sparked a reawakening of the national debate on AA, but… no. Her mom bought the neighborhood’s first set of encylopedias!
This is where every other national office-holding R should have come into play, not to mention the RNC. Conservatives are horrified by this pick… and we see nothing done about it outside of a few questions. She probably would have been confirmed anyway, but the point is, there was little to no fight on this, just like just about everything else.
Seeing the “conservative” “leadership” rain hellfire down on this nightmare would have 1) thrown a spotlight on her racialist views 2) provided a psycological boost to the base. Make every. single. victory. a Pyrric one for the liberals. They will have to think carefully every time they pile another piece of socialism onto this country. As it is, the less resistance is thrown, the tougher it will get. Again I ask: What are we saving the fight for? Far too late by the time the forced abortions and the reducation camps come barrelling down the pike.
I grow weary of hearing my viewpoint articulated only by people who have radio audiences but no power beneath the Capitol dome.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:43 PM
Exactly. There is no victory here at all. Anyone who thinks so has not been paying attention whatsoever the last 8 years:
“No, she doesn’t mean it but it will make for some nice issue adds in the future.”
Which ads will never, ever run. Because they’ll get the Repubs called racist. Which is gonna happen anyway, facts, evidence, and logic be damned. And around the circle we go again.
Not that you’re wrong, Drew; no, there’s not a lot we can do, she’s gonna get in anyway. But anybody who thinks any of this will stop Obamandias, King of Kings, from nominating whatever abomination he wants to for any position whatever needs to take another look at the raving lunatic he’s named as “science” czar. He’s securely in the driver’s seat, and for every weak-tea consolation-prize poll we cite saying Duh Peepul don’t like it, he can always gin up five more that say otherwise.
Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2009 01:11 PM
Excellent point here by CJ. This is exactly MY point when I am pissed off at conservatives who continue to accept the status quo and accept that Republicans can’t do anything. If WE are not willing to fight, then how do we expect Republicans to fight? The fact is that if we don’t start actively fighting all this BS, then we’re going to continue to have spineless GOP representatives curl up and die on all the issues. It starts with we, conservatives. And it frustrates me to no end that some conservatives just do.not.get.it.
I think a lot of people here have it backward: members of Congress REACT to culture/conventional wisdom, not the other way around. It’s bottom up. The GOP will aggressively challenge left wing minority public officials when WE make it safe for them to do so.
Democrats wouldn’t have tried to bork Bork as a ‘threat to civil rights’ if they didn’t think they had adequate cover beyond Capitol Hill. Right or wrong, the storyline of the throw-back Jim Crow bigot hiding behind the “constructionist” mask provided that cover. Republican members of Congress will get the nerve to take on left-wing minorities when conservatives outside the Beltway make it safe for them to do so.
Posted by: CJ at July 17, 2009 01:32 PM
DrewM, that is indeed the smart way to play it in the traditional political system– but my opinion is that system is crumbling. I truly think we’re on the leading edge of a different era now, and in this era we fight. Everything.
I also think that there’s a difference between “reacting” and “framing the debate.” We drop the AA bomb and the perjury bomb, and the issue becomes not her PC credentials, but the worldview of the administration. I think that’s the key reason why Barry has any support at all — too many people are inclined to believe the best of him (I idiotically did during the primaries) and aren’t truly aware of what he’s really trying to do here.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 01:32 PM
“…[L]ife is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically.” —Rush Limbaugh, June 5, 2009
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. So, the question is: Will Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, be the one who helps to return this country back to being a nation respecting the sanctity of human life by being one of a majority of Justices agreeing to overturn Roe v Wade, thus allowing the people of the United States of America to vote, in each of their respective States, on the legality of murdering babies?
Rush makes a pretty compelling argument that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may, in fact, be Pro-Life: All the Latest on Sonia Sotomayor
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, even more has been learned about Sonia Sotomayor and abortion. And what we have learned here is from a speech that she gave in June 2001, eight years ago, in which she commends liberal lawsuits on abortion, illegal immigration, and welfare reform. Here’s what she said. Now, I know they’re going to climb on me for saying this. She really writes poorly, and people are acknowledging this. There were a couple stories yesterday that it’s amazing how poorly written her opinions are compared to other appellate judges who are all great writers. In fact, it’s one of the trademarks of an appellate judge, Supreme Court justice, is their brilliant writing. So I’ll just read this passage from the speech of Judge Sotomayor in June of 2001.
“In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services money from taking on class-action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion, illegal immigration, or welfare reform. Commendably –” so she agrees with that “– commendably, I know Brooklyn law school’s clinical programs have redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation. These efforts and the volunteer efforts of other law schools, bar groups and lawyers and private law firms are not enough. The need is very great.” She is commending Congress prohibiting lawyers receiving federal legal service money from taking on lawsuits involving abortion. Now, what that means is that she agrees that federal money should not be used to pay lawyers who take on abortion cases. Now, what are we to conclude from this? Well, it’s just more confusion. It just leads to more confusion. Now, here is a woman with rich Latina, wise life experiences, by her own admission multiple times in her life, saying she doesn’t think it’s right for lawyers filing suits on abortion to get federal money to do it.
Now, that would make one tend to think that she thinks one of two things: That the government ought have nothing to say about it via their money, and secondly, if these lawyers want to go ahead and file abortion cases then find the clients to pay up. Don’t ask the government to do it. She is a devout Catholic. She is a devout Catholic. And, folks, I’m telling you the only evidence — and it isn’t evidence — the only evidence we have that she is pro-Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion, is that Obama has assured us. But Obama has said he didn’t talk to her and on her questionnaire that she submitted yesterday she said she wasn’t asked specifically about it. But yet Obama knows specifically, but she says she hasn’t said specifically or even been asked specifically. So I don’t know. I know a lot of you people think this is nuts because you think that Obama would not nominate anybody to the court who was not pro-Roe v. Wade or pro-abortion. But just in a general sense I could agree and understand that, but what if he doesn’t really know? What if he’s just assuming? If he knows, somebody’s lying about them having talked about it, because she says in her questionnaire that she hasn’t. Nor was she asked, directly or indirectly.
Now, it could well be that she’s told, you know, some colleague somewhere who told an Obama White House official, don’t worry about it. She didn’t admit that in questionnaire. She said that didn’t happen. I also saw in a news story that she has spoken highly of Justice Scalia, another Catholic on the US Supreme Court who, of course, thinks Roe v. Wade is horrendously bad constitutional law. Justice Scalia, in fact, in an abortion case — I’ll never forget, give you an example of just how great a writer and thinker Scalia is, but how all of these appellate judges, most of them are really, really good writers. You have to be, when you’re going to explain your opinion and so forth, you’ve got to be a good writer, not just in legalese, but in common sense language as well. And he said from the case that had just been decided, it was apparent to him that, “The mansion that is abortion rights law will have to be torn down doorjamb by doorjamb.”
Now, nobody talks that way. If you go to a party and you’re talking about abortion, nobody is going to say, “You know what, abortion’s like a mansion, and we’re going to have to end it by tearing it apart doorjamb by doorjamb,” but people do write that way. Good writers have a flair for writing unique things. Scalia does. It’s kind of like golf announcing on TV. I play golf and if I make par, I’ll say, “That’s four,” or “That’s a par,” but I will not say, “I authored a par.” Golf announcers will say, “Tiger Woods authored a par.” If Tiger Woods bogeys a hole, they will say, “And he puts a blemish on the scorecard with a five.” We who play golf do not say, after a bogey, “Well, there’s a blemish on my card.” We shout the F-bomb!
RUSH: From the New York Daily News today:
“Dawn Cardi looms very large in the life of Sonia Sotomayor. She constantly refers to her in speeches as her watchdog to make sure she is doing the right thing.”
And then there’s a web link here about Sotomayor sharing joy with her best friend, and the Daily News headline, this is from Friday, May 29th:
“‘Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor ‘Open,’ Will Follow Law on Abortion Issue, Says Friend.’ — Sonia Sotomayor has never made a major ruling on the issue of abortion –“
this we know,
“– and she remains mum about whether she believes in a woman’s right to choose. Sotomayor understands how difficult it is for a woman to decide whether to have an abortion and she knows women who have struggled with that choice, a longtime friend told the Daily News. ‘Years ago, we spoke about abortion, about how difficult a choice it is,’ Dawn Cardi, a lawyer and one of Sotomayor’s closest friends, told the News Friday. ‘It’s a very, very difficult choice, and (we discussed) how difficult it must be for a woman who has to make that choice,’ Cardi recalled. … Asked directly if Sotomayor believes a woman has a right to choose an abortion, Cardi replied, ‘She will follow what she thinks is the law on that, and her personal beliefs will not interfere with that analysis because my view of her is that she does not allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her analysis of legal issues.”
Now, now, now, she clearly does. She has said that her personal beliefs impact her decisions because she said that judges, appellate judges make policy. Now, the reason why I think something’s going on here, Sotomayor is a liberal. She faces no problem being confirmed. She’s got a majority of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a majority of Democrats in the Senate. Most libs are eager to tell you about their Roe v. Wade beliefs, their abortion beliefs. She would not. Her confirmation would not suffer had it been known over the years what her opinion on this was and yet she’s gone to great lengths to keep it quiet. She has gone to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to have it an open question. We know what she thinks of affirmative action. We know what she thinks of a lot of other public issues by virtue of her rulings and what she’s written. But on this one issue, we don’t know. And I would think that if, for example, she is pro-life, she’s probably calculating that could do more harm to her than by admitting she’s pro-choice. Am I correct? She’s dealing with liberals here that are going to vote on her. So no pain, no harm. She might get some grief about telegraphing the way she’s going to rule on an issue, and I know that no nominee comes out and says what they think about this. But she hasn’t said when she thinks about it ever.
My instincts tell me that it’s because people who are her friends on other issues might not appreciate what she really thinks about abortion. As I have continued to delve into this, as I have continued to investigate and research this and try to get to the quick, try to get to the soul of this, where she comes down on it, I have to say that there’s a better than 50-50 shot she’s pro-life. She’s Catholic. I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, don’t misunderstand, Puerto Rican Catholic, they’re devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there. It certainly could not hurt her with her own people for it to be known. It could only harm her with her own people if she’s pro-life and she’s staying mum on it, zipped lips.
So I can’t say for sure, but it sure seems to me that it’s — well, you know, I’ve said that life is such an important issue. If I learned, could be relatively certain and assured that she thinks Roe is bad constitutional law and is a pro-life individual, you’d have to stop and consider maybe supporting that. You can get past the racism and bigotry and other things, but life is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically. So I know it would be controversial, but I could see being in favor of this nomination were she pro-life. Certainly could.
A couple years ago, I used to blog on the Curiouser and Curiouser site run by Michael Turner. I stopped after I got burnt out on politics. However, I wanted to repost this series of posts I made of the Rush Limbaugh interview of Mark Levin on his book “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”.
Rush Limbaugh had lawyer F. Lee Levin, Mark Levin, on his show today to discuss his new book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”. Mr. Levin was the chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese during the Reagan administration. His main focus is on the law and the Constitution of the United States of America. Rush asked him why he has written his new book focusing on the Supreme Court:
LEVIN: Well, you know, the book is written for the public, not for you know, Main Street, not for Harvard square. It’s for regular Americans so they can understand what’s happening to their government, how the Supreme Court is disenfranchising them and what they can do about it. There’s really not a year that goes by, Rush — and you talk about it all the time — when there’s some case that comes down, some decision that is really shocking to the American people, whether it’s conferring rights on terrorists or conferring benefits on illegal immigrants and on and on and on. So I thought it was time to really dissect this, really get into this — especially since we’re about to have a major battle over the Supreme Court when the president nominates one, two or three justices in the future. So I’m really trying to arm people who are interested in this subject with information so they can take it to their representatives and participate in this fight. Yeah. I mean, you know, the public stands there. We watch these left-wing groups savage one outstanding judicial candidate after another. We stand there and we watch the Supreme Court issue one outrageous policy decision after another. We live in the greatest representative republic on the face of the earth. It’s time that we emphasized the “representative” part. We don’t have to leave these decisions to a small cabal of left-wing senators or small cabal of left-wing special-interest groups, or a handful of lawyers who happen to be Supreme Court justices. The Framers didn’t view it that way and we ought not to either.
Rush spent an entire hour of his show interviewing Mr. Levin and the discussion was enlightening, to say the least. I learned so much just listening to them this afternoon that I feel this information needs to get out to everyone. So I’m going to make a series of posts to share their discussion, and encourage you to read more by buying the book “Men in Black”. [I also encourage you all to subscribe to RushLimbaugh.com to have access to brilliant information and opinions such as this on a daily basis.]
RUSH: No. No. Because not only does it deserve to be, but this is a book, there are very few of these kind of books that come along that people actually need to read. This is historically informative. This is an educational yet entertaining book to read, and I want to start. You’ve perfectly cast what the court is doing now, what the left-wing groups are doing now, how a small cabal of Democrat senators can stop it. Where did this all start? What was the original intent? I know this is something we are all interested in here when we discuss the Constitution. What was the original intent of the Founders of the Supreme Court and how has it varied from that over the years?
LEVIN: Well, the Framers created basically a silhouette in the Constitution when it comes to the judiciary. It created a Supreme Court that had some specific powers not relevant to our discussion, and it left it to Congress —
RUSH: Did it name the number? Did it name the number of justices?
LEVIN: No, it did not. It was a blank slate pretty much, and it left it to Congress to decide.
RUSH: So Congress decided on nine justices.
LEVIN: Well, first there were seven. There have been a variety of numbers over the years. FDR wanted to make them 14, but it’s pretty settled now that there are nine justices. The number of justices to me doesn’t really matter. It’s what they do. The Constitution doesn’t speak of what the lower court’s going to look like. That’s left to Congress, too. So you have a situation in the Constitution where the elected branches are pretty specific about what they’re going to look like. The judiciary they’re not specific. As I say it’s a silhouette, and it’s left to Congress to paint the picture, and Congress from time to time ought to paint that picture. Early in our history it did. I mean there were judiciary acts and they changed the makeup of the court. They changed what the lower courts look like. But where everything really changed, at least the impetus, was in the election of 1800 when John Adams and the Federalists got their political clocks cleaned by Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans. Adams lost the presidency. The Federalists lost both houses of Congress, but there was a big period of time back then between the time the new president came in and the old one left. It was March. And so during that time, Adams decided that he’s going to try and make sure at least the Federalists have some say. So he tried to ram through some judges, which he did through the lame duck Federalist Senate, 16 of them, one of them being Marbury. He named his secretary of state, who was John Marshall, chief justice, and got him confirmed about five or six weeks before he left office, and so one of those judges challenged Jefferson, who said, “You know, I don’t have to put up with this. I’m not going to appoint these judges,” and he ordered his secretary of state, Madison, to sit on them and not appoint them. So you have this lawsuit, and it comes before the Supreme Court, and who’s the chief justice? John Marshall. John Marshall was also a political confidante of Adams’ over the years and a footnote, he was a distant cousin of Jefferson’s and they were frequently political adversaries in Virginia. So the bottom line is this case comes before the court — and let me cut to the chase. Marshall uses the occasion of the case to basically announce — and, of course, I paraphrase — he says, “You know what? When it comes to constitutional issues, we’ll basically have the final say here, folks. I just want to make that clear, that somebody has to do it, and we’ll do it,” and Jefferson went nuts. And for the rest of his life he was the biggest critic of what he considered a seizure of power by the Supreme Court. He called it “the despotism of an oligarchy” way back in 1820, and since then it’s gotten worse! I mean, we put this court up as if it’s an Olympian council, and I don’t know why. Let’s look at some quick facts. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that slavery is the law of the land compelled by the Constitution. It is not compelled by the Constitution. Even in the free territories, slavery is the law of the land. In 1896 the Supreme Court decided in Plessy vs. Ferguson that separate but equal is equal. That’s not what the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says! And in 1944, the Supreme Court — by the way, I don’t give FDR and Earl Warren a pass on this. The Supreme Court upheld in a very short opinion the internment of American citizens mostly Japanese-Americans, the removal from their homes on the Pacific Coast, moving them to the interior and they upheld that. So we have slavery, segregation, the internment of American citizens. The Supreme Court was on the wrong side of all those.
RUSH: Claiming all three of those are constitutional to boot.
LEVIN: That’s correct.
RUSH: Claiming they’re constitutional when the Constitution says nothing about it. That’s one of the things here. You ask… You don’t know why they did it. I have to ask you about this. It seems to me that — whatever you want to call, Democrat, liberal, leftist, whatever label you want to attach to it — this kind of extraconstitutional power and desire for it has been around for years and years and years and years, and what you have just said is not taught anymore in the public schools. What you’ve just said, I have no doubt, is big news to a whole lot of people listening to this program, that the Supreme Court itself determined it is the final arbiter of what’s constitutional or not, that it just took that on itself. Now, that’s a brazen power ploy as you just said. It has evolved now to the point that liberals, that’s the only way they can get the vast majority of what they believe woven into the fabric our society.
RUSH: Because that stuff would never pass legislatively, and so for years — for a century, over a century — this stuff, it’s just become accepted. Now the American people have been slowly lulled into a comfortability with the notion that the Supreme Court is the final word on controversial political subjects.
LEVIN: Yeah, you know, let me be real clear about this. What are we talking about? We’re talking about today nine lawyers who are on the Supreme Court. Most people don’t know who five or six of those lawyers are, know very little about them. In our history we’ve had only about 120 justices. Some of them have been brilliant; some of them have been extremely competent; some of them have been racists; some of them have been senile, and some of them have been crooks. I mean they’re imperfect human beings, and it is time — as you wrote recently in an op-ed — to strip the veneer from the court and these justices. We shouldn’t hold them up higher than the elected branches. They’re no better and no worse than the people who serve in the elected branches. But where he we do draw the line is when they start setting policy based on their personal views or even more so-so views that are not expressed in the Constitution. In the dissent in Dred Scott in 1856 there was this Justice Curtis, and he couldn’t have put it better. If Justice Curtis were nominated by President Bush today, people like Chuck Schumer would say he’s an extremist and he’s unqualified. Justice Curtis said, speaking up against the decision of the court upholding slavery, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution. We are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according their own views of what it ought to mean.” This man could not be confirmed today to the United States Supreme Court!
RUSH: Mark Levin is with us. He’s discussing the history of the Supreme Court, what to do about where we are now in his new book Men in Black.