The Supreme Court Will Demand Overwhelming Evidence

0
2

RUSH: Here’s Ashley, Hanover, Pennsylvania. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Oh, my gosh. Rush Baby dittos and MAGA prayers from the people’s Republic of Pennsylvania.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Formally the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Rush, I spent four years in high school eating lunch in my car so I could listen to you, and I’m 36 now, so I want you to know that I’m praying for you and Kathryn and I love you. You’re not just my guiding light. You’re family.

RUSH: Well, thank you. I really, really — we both do, appreciate that, more than you know.

CALLER: Two quick things. So I’m from PA, and we all kind of knew that the fix was in when we woke up Wednesday morning. I personally know maybe 10 to 15 registered Democrats who voted for the very first time in their life for President Trump this last election, so nobody here is buying these numbers. And the second thing is, since you’re always right 99.8% of the time —


RUSH: Almost always right, that’s right.

CALLER: Almost. What are the odds that the Supreme Court will hear this evidence, and what coverage, if any, do you believe that they’re watching or listening to, and do you think that they have to hear this ultimately for the election to be overturned?

RUSH: As far as the court — yes. The Supreme Court’s gonna have to be the determinant here. And for them to take the case, it’s a high bar. There’s gonna have to be overwhelming evidence that these people would prevail. Meaning there’s gonna have to be overwhelming evidence that a whole lot of votes were changed, enough to significantly change the outcome.

I talked yesterday, don’t think the court really wants any part of this because of separation of powers. Some of them do, but it’s gonna be evidence-based. And, yeah, they’re watching this. They’re human beings.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Ruben in Long Island. Back in New York we go. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Oh, thank you so much, Rush. Oh, my gosh. Amazing to talk to you. How are you?

RUSH: I’m doing very well today. I get worn out in about the last half hour of the program. Other than that I’m doing well.

CALLER: I’m gonna keep it easy. I’m a rabbi in Long Island, also a teacher, you should know students are praying for you and we really wish you the best. Me and my wife, we’ve actually listened to you for like 20 years. And we like political commentary, we like the technology, we know you love Apple. I’m telling you right now my Apple 5 has been going two hours already on hold. Amazing.

Something you asked before was that you don’t think the courts are gonna take it up unless you think there’s gonna be a practical difference that it can make a difference in the election, they won’t take up the case. And don’t you think — I was thinking possibly we should push forward anyway because, you know, with Trump’s legacy of course with Jerusalem, the embassy in Jerusalem and the funding of historical black colleges and, you know, the economy and the wall, don’t you think it would be the greatest legacy – I hope he wins — but if he loses this will be the greatest legacy to transform America by actually bringing back the integrity of the elections?

RUSH: What are you asking me in all that?

CALLER: You said you don’t think they’re gonna move forward unless they think he could actually win in the court system. So is there any way — let’s say Trump wouldn’t win. Let’s say he wouldn’t get the amount of votes, but still they should go in the court system to keep pushing and, you know, through the courts, talking about the fraud and taking care of it.

RUSH: Wait. You’re asking me if a court will take case even (intentionally mumbling) because Trump’s legacy’s important?

CALLER: Not — they shouldn’t do ’cause Trump’s legacy is important. Rudy should keep pushing and everyone should keep pushing. We shouldn’t say, oh, just because he’s gonna lose we’re gonna stop fighting in court.

RUSH: Well, now the Supreme Court’s gonna say they have to have a high bar here. The Supreme Court doesn’t take — they get 10 cases they’re asked to throw out nine of them.

CALLER: You’re right, but even the Supreme Court should — they should take it up even if he’s gonna lose the election but just to deal with the fraud that’s been going on in the country and in the election system. ‘Cause if the Trump campaign could prove — to prove it even in some states —

RUSH: Let me ask you a quick question. Are you of the impression the Supreme Court does what it does for the betterment of America the save the Constitution, the Supreme Court does what it does because it’s important the Trump legacy be surviving even if Trump loses the election?

CALLER: That’s what we would hope.

RUSH: That’s not how the court operates. That’s not how they think.

CALLER: So you think they’re only gonna take it up, they’ll ignore it if it won’t benefit —

RUSH: No, no. (crosstalk)

CALLER: — practically?

RUSH: I don’t know what they’re gonna do. I’m wild guessing here. I know that when I speak it sounds like I’m speaking with ontological certitude, but in this case, intelligence guided by experience, for the court to take the case, they have to be convinced it’s worth their time. And the objective of the case is to overturn the results as officially tabulated, a big deal. They’d better have the evidence to do this. The court’s not gonna waste its time. It doesn’t have the time to waste.

The Supreme Court does not sit there and decide we are gonna do this so the republic survives, we’re gonna do that so the republic — if they did then John Roberts wouldn’t have done what he did with Obamacare. I’ll tell you what this points out, this call. This call, one of the biggest problems we have in this country — and there’s no fixing this anytime soon — the Supreme Court is looked at, nine people, nine people are looked at as the final straw.

Nine people in this country have been granted the power by the American people, whatever they say is what is. And that’s just too bad. The idea that this or any other case will be determined by nine people in black robes — and there’s a reason for this, folks. There’s a reason why we are so screwed in so many ways. There is a reason why unelected regulators have so much power. There is a reason. And it is that our elected officials punt. They avoid the controversial things so that it doesn’t hamper their reelection.

Elected officials are happy to have regulators write regulations on who can build something where and who can’t. They can say, “I had nothing to do with it.” “Well, you’re my congressman. You gotta fix it.” “I’ll do what I can. I’ll do what I can but I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t write the law.” “Well, this you law is punishing me, Mr. Congressman. I voted for you.” “I’ll do what I can, but I -” that’s the standard refrain. That’s happened in the court system as well.

You’ve had a number of — well, I think it was campaign finance reform and George W. Bush, the administration. And they wouldn’t come out one way or another. They just decided to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on it. And what happened? The Supreme Court said that they ruled against the Bush administration’s preferences on campaign finance reform. Then we got people, “The Supreme Court, Rush, they need to care about the Trump legacy.” I’m sorry. They don’t. The individual judges do; don’t misunderstand.

We got some there who voted for Trump. Some who didn’t. You’ve got people on the court that like Trump, others who don’t. You’ve got people on the court who hope Trump succeeds, others who don’t. But you’ll never get a one of them to admit that that has anything to do with the way they do their jobs. And for the most part, they’ll be telling the truth, especially the judges on the conservative side. But there’s not a one of them thinks that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect the Trump legacy.

However, John Roberts, the chief justice, no doubt thought and believes that it’s his job to protect Obama’s legacy. And you remember how mad you got when that happened. John Roberts, the chief justice, rewrote Obamacare to make it constitutional, when it wasn’t. And why? Why do you think? He didn’t want to be the white justice that made the first African-American president’s signature legislation unconstitutional. It wasn’t gonna happen. And we were fools to think that he would.

We thought he was a judge first. We thought he was a justice first. We thought he was the constitutionalist first. Turns out he’s a woke cancel culture aware guy and he didn’t want to be canceled. He didn’t want to be berated for taking away the first African-American president’s health care plan. Didn’t matter constitutional, unconstitutional, he wasn’t gonna do it.

And he wasn’t gonna let anybody else do it. And further, came out and said, it’s not our role. It’s not our role. The American people elected Obama. He should get his legislation. So we made it constitutional. “Well, why won’t they do that for Trump? Why won’t they do that for Trump?” Question kind of answers itself.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here