Image result for rush limbaughRUSH: Jeffrey Lord was on CNN with Anderson Cooper last night and talking about the Ninth Circuit ruling. (interruption) Don’t worry; I know they’ve started. We’ll JIP this thing. We won’t miss the press conference. Here’s Jeffrey Lord making an argument about how Trump could proceed here after the Ninth Circus continued the stay on his executive order.

LORD: Newt Gingrich when he was running for president in 2011, talking about the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case involving Guantanamo and the rights of prisoners. And Speaker Gingrich said, “I would instruct the national security officials in the Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, ‘As the commander-in-chief, we will not enforce this.'” This is called departmentalism. And this goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819, “Each department of the national government is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”

RUSH: Okay, were you following that? Now, this is an admitted Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord. He writes for the American Spectator, and he’s citing actual and true American history. He’s reciting what Jefferson wrote, and he is quoting Newt Gingrich. Now, he’s talking to Jeffrey Toobin. He’s a legal analyst CNN. As far as these people are concerned, there is no coequal branch business. The judiciary runs this country.

Yes, there’s separation of powers, but whenever a court speaks — whether they are condemning the constitutionality of a law from Congress or whether they are condemning a presidential action — the Supreme Court is it. The Supreme Court is the last word. Here comes Jeffrey Lord saying (summarized), “No, no, no. Thomas Jefferson said it’s up to each branch to decide how in the world they are going to define the Constitution’s separation of powers,” and he quoted Gingrich as saying (summarized), “Look, in matters of national security, the court can go to hell. I’m gonna ignore what the court gets wrong because they don’t have all the information I have and I’m gonna implement what I think best.”

Well, now, you can imagine the reaction this got on CNN.

TOOBIN: God sakes, Jeff —

LORD: Well —

TOOBIN: — that’s ridiculous.

LORD: Well —

TOOBIN: The idea —

LORD: Jeff —

TOOBIN: — that the president of the United States can ignore judgments of the court? You know, Andrew Jackson did it regarding the Cherokee Indians.

LORD: And Abraham Lincoln did it! Abraham Lincoln did it.

WOMAN: (snickering)

TOOBIN: Yeah, Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War —

WOMAN: (snickering)

TOOBIN: — which is a little different from what’s going on now. The idea —

LORD: Well, according to all my liberal friends, we’re in a Civil War. (chuckling)

TOOBIN: The idea (sputtering) that a president… You know, much credit to Donald Trump, frankly, for saying —

LORD: Jeff?

TOOBIN: “See you in court,” rather than saying, “I’m ignoring the court.”

LORD: Jeff?

TOOBIN: Newt Gingrich’s lunacy —

LORD: See?

TOOBIN: — is not something that —

LORD: Jeff, all I’m saying —

TOOBIN: — anyone should look up to.

LORD: I’m not —

RUSH: Wait a minute, kudos to Donald Trump? “Much credit to Donald Trump for saying, ‘See you in court'”? You know, it’s fascinating. Andrew Jackson… By the way, Lincoln did more than what Jeffrey Lord is attributing to him. Abraham Lincoln actually put a sitting member of Congress in jail. He sent the military out to roust the guy up, put him in jail. Roger Taney was a chief justice of the Supreme Court and he gave a ruling that Lincoln didn’t like on habeas corpus, and he almost put Taney in jail. The fact it was a Civil War…

You know, folks, I gotta tell you something.

I don’t think we’re that far from a Civil War in this country right now. I’m not talking about armed conflict, North v. South, but we clearly have a divide in this country that is in no way gonna be bridged. It isn’t gonna be bridged by compromise. It’s not gonna be bridged by walking across the aisle and getting along with people, and it’s not gonna be bridged by persuading people to agree with us and vice-versa. The only way this is ever gonna end is when one side gets defeated — politically defeated — and becomes a demonstrable minority.

That’s the only way any of this is gonna end. The left does not want this to end! This is normalcy for the left. You must understand this. This is what they want life in America to be day in and day out. Remember, they are victims. They are not happy. As victims, it is impossible to be happy. It’s impossible to be content. They think there are no reasons to be happy. Even when Obama was winning and he was in the White House, they were still livid and angry every day! Over what? The fact that there was opposition to Obama!

read more:

Views: 518

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was in my car the other day when Rush mentioned the Supreme Court case in 1948 where the Supreme Court itself said that it has no say in politics and that the politics should be left up to the two political branches.

Rush also said that in 1953, it was that Supreme Court ruling Congress then codified into the law that Trump used.

I didn't have a pen handy, so I didn't write it down, now I can't remember the court case.

Doe anyone else know it or remember it?

This might be it:

There are real-world examples of Presidents, through their Justice Department, refusing to defend existing laws in courts, although it is rare. In fact, a research of the literature uncovers, before DOMA, only eleven cases. I will not recite all the cases, but the first example occurred in 1948 in the case of U.S. v. Lovett which involved salaries for certain federal employees. Then, the Justice Department refused to defend the law in court claiming it was a Bill of Attainder. In 1963, the Kennedy Administration refused to defend a law that codified the doctrine of “separate but equal” in hospital funding. Likewise, there are cases where one Administration decided not to defend a law and the next Administration’s interpretation of its constitutionality is different and they choose to defend the law.

Thanks Jea9, I think that it is the case Rush refereed to, but, I can't find the paragraph he quoted from.

At least now I have a place to look.

Look to the Declaration of Independence we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and we hold these truths to be self-evident that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are you happy?

we are living in a different world today most young people don't believe in that because we are not teaching it to the kids in school and college I am sorry to say that

Trump is being TOO kind and respectful of the court, by accepting their decision. He has constitutional authority..., to protect and defend the United States citizens...,REGARDLESS OF ANY COURT. Were it me..., I would IGNORE THE COURT..., and continue the march to what he KNOWS, is right!!! As the liberals are so fond of saying...,"if it saves even one life..., then it is JUSTIFIED!!!"

Absolutely... Trump needs to pull an Andrew Jackson... and tell the Courts that they are not the only ones capable of determining what is Constitutional.  Unelected Judges have usurped powers never intended... to be in their purview.  We are not to be RULED BY JUDICIAL FIAT... in other words, judicial adjudications... judicial dicta ... doesn't make law.  Judges Administer law they don't have the power to change the laws... any case found unconstitutional doesn't change the law it only gives relief to the parties in the suit... for that CASE ALONE.  Case law was never supposed to supplant Statutory law.

If the Courts find cause to rule a Statutory law or Order unconstitutional... it is up to the Congress or President to rewrite or strike down the law or Order... not the Courts.  The decision in the Courts is limited to the facts and law as applied in that CASE ALONE... PERIOD.  Every petitioner or complainant who believes the law or order is unconstitutional must bring a separate case before the courts too obtain relief... as case law and the courts dicta in one case doesn't apply to all cases...  the statutory law and order stand as issued until changed by the Congress and President.  .

No, Trump's right.  These bad decisions have been left alone for too long and they just encourage more bad decisions.  Trump said that he was going to make America Great Again.  He didn't say that he was going to polish crap to make it look better.

He needs to go to the mat on this and rub the liberals nose in it.

The fight informs the people, even the uniformed people, because they can't get away from it.

Then if the liberals keep losing on Constitutional grounds, they're going to change tactics and try something else.

Right now the liberals think that they're tough because they don't quit, well it's a test of wills now and they're up against Trump.

Who do you think is tougher?

My bet would be on Trump....he is tough...and will not stand for the silliness that has been going on...

well! let's see what going to happen

No they think they are tough because they are controlling the National Narrative... they have the larger bull horn.  It is time for Trump to step up to the Bully Pulpit and call on his supporters to rally against the horrible opinions being rendered by the 9th Circuit... not one of the three judges should be left on the bench... such a hewn cry for their Impeachment should fill the Capitols of the 50 States and the US in DC.

Where are the rallies and the protests by the Conservative Right... if they become silent in the face of true opposition... don't expect VICTORY too magically appear.  The Left relies on the Conservatives too go to work, too, keep silent until it is too late to correct the narrative and it becomes the law of the land.

Wake up we have not yet begun to fight... the good fight is taking place. Yet most Conservative Americans are either unwilling to engage the fight or are unaware that the battle has just begun.  Our Victory in November must not become a hollow one.. we must not loose our momentum and resolve... we must rally to Trump's aid NOW!  We must defeat the MSM... pulling the door posts and lintels of these institutions down around their own heads... we must summarily pummel them into oblivion... they will not reform or change... they will not voluntarily surrender their power.. it will take the force of wills and our ability to demonstrate our resolve in ways they understand... and MUST ACCEPT.

It is time to DEMAND that Sen. McConnell use the Nuclear Option to END THE FILIBUSTER RULES of the US Senate... the Democrat Party must be subdued in no uncertain terms... their power reduced to nothing.  It must be done now or we risk violent revolution and the capitulation of the week minded and vacillating RINO's.


there is no way to avoid it this is it folks



Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen


Romney Handed Shock
Defeat By Own State’s GOP

Mitt Romney is back in state politics, this time in Utah instead of Massachusetts. However, conservatives in The Beehive State aren’t exactly warming up to the 2012 Republican standard-bearer quite the way many people expected they would.

After finishing second in votes at the state GOP convention, Romney will now face a primary in his run for the Senate seat being vacated by Orrin Hatch, Fox News reported.

At the convention in West Valley City on Saturday, Romney polled just behind state lawmaker Mike Kennedy.

Kennedy captured 50.18 percent of the delegate vote compared to Romney’s 49.12 percent.

That means the two will face off in a primary on June 26 to determine who will represent the GOP this fall.

Romney, the first Mormon to head a major party ticket, is considered an extremely popular figure in Utah and was widely expected to have an easy path to the upper chamber.

In a hypothetical matchup with Democrat Jenny Wilson, at least one poll showed Romney up by 46 percent. That’s, uh, slightly more than the margin of error.

However, among party loyalists, Romney isn’t exactly viewed with unalloyed fondness.

The 2012 presidential nominee was always known for being decidedly moderate, particularly on issues of immigration and global trade. There was also the fact that he ran a campaign so bumbling that it almost made Michael Dukakis look good.

And then there was Romney’s war of words with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, which likely led many to perceive he secretly wished Hillary Clinton would take the Oval Office.

Trump would later consider Romney as a secretary of state pick, although how serious the president-elect was about appointing him is something we’ll likely never know.

While your average Utah Republican is unlikely to let these slights affect their vote, hardcore party activists probably don’t want another RINO who isn’t exactly known for his rapport with the president in the upper chamber of Congress, no matter how famous he may be.

For his part, Romney tried to put a good spin on the humiliation.

“I’m delighted with the outcome. Did very, very well,” he told KSTU. “On to a good, important primary ahead. This is terrific for the people of Utah.”

Dude, you just lost to a guy nobody has ever heard of. However, Kennedy was happy with the results, and unlike Romney, he had good reason to be.

“I’m a candidate with a compelling life story and a unique set of life circumstances I’d like to use to serve the people of Utah,” Kennedy said.

I have no idea what that story or those circumstances are, but I think the key point here is that he’s not Mitt Romney. If he wants to win, that’s pretty much what he should be focusing on. I can see the billboards now. “Mike Kennedy: Not Mitt Romney.” “Mike Kennedy: He didn’t borrow Ward Cleaver’s haircut.” “Mike Kennedy: Because Utah deserves a senator whose favorite food isn’t buttered noodles.”

Utah’s electorate tends to be less conservative than convention-goers, so it’s unlikely that Romney won’t be the GOP nominee for Senate. However, that’s not a 100 percent certainty — and it wouldn’t be the first time he’s lost to a Kennedy.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service