Speaker 1: Paula in in Heartland, Wisconsin. I'm glad you waited. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Russia Inmball program. Rush, so cool to talk
Speaker 1: to you. Anyway, I'm going to get right to my point,
Speaker 1: like I was instructed, Um, Russia. I had a thought,
Speaker 1: UM doing some reading this morning. UM, I understand that
Speaker 1: Harry Reid and some Democratic senators are going to try
Speaker 1: to push through some filibuster changes in the filibuster rules.
Speaker 1: And as I got thinking about it as a man,
Speaker 1: I hope I can get rushed today because I need
Speaker 1: his input on this. And I'm thinking, well, the House
Speaker 1: is now Republican, so it's really not going to manager
Speaker 1: as far as legislation goes. But I'm thinking the Senate
Speaker 1: does all the judicial and federal nominations, approves them. And
Speaker 1: I'm thinking that since Obama's agenda is really going nowhere legislatively, UM,
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are looking at this is a way
Speaker 1: to load the courts with as radical judges as they
Speaker 1: can to try to keep their agenda moving forward. Well, now,
Speaker 1: you know you are incredibly shrewd, and I mean this,
Speaker 1: you are incredibly shrewd. I just want to bring one
Speaker 1: small correction their desire to get rid of the filibuster
Speaker 1: in the Senate goes beyond judicial nominations. They really want
Speaker 1: to get it. It's they they've they've lost. Uh. The
Speaker 1: filibuster is now an obstacle. So of course it's outdated,
Speaker 1: it's outmoded, it's a fetish, uh, and we have to
Speaker 1: get rid of it. We've got to get rid of
Speaker 1: this requirement that says they have to have sixty votes
Speaker 1: to getting none. That's just antiquainted and held them back.
Speaker 1: So they're serious about it in terms of legislation, but
Speaker 1: the way this breaks down legally is quite fascinating. And
Speaker 1: a lot of people are calling Republicans hypocrites for opposing
Speaker 1: the change in filibuster rule. And the reason it's a
Speaker 1: fallacious reason. The reason Republicans are being called hypocrites is
Speaker 1: because the Republicans objected to the filibustering of judicial nominees
Speaker 1: and now all of a sudden, Democrats want to get
Speaker 1: rid of the filibuster, and the Republicans are opposing that. Everybody,
Speaker 1: who are you Republican hypocrit it's why you? You you
Speaker 1: wanted to stop the Democrats using the filipuster on judicial nominees.
Speaker 1: There's a constitutional reason judicial nominees, UH cover both branches.
Speaker 1: You have the President who makes the nominations and the
Speaker 1: Senate who confirms and saw the filibustering of judicial nominees
Speaker 1: is something that affects the executive branch, and that, to
Speaker 1: my Lehman's mind, after consultation was several legal scholars, is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: The Senate can't pass legislation limiting the things the executive
Speaker 1: branch can do. That's why there's a separation of powers
Speaker 1: in the first place. So it is in my mind.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of people on our side,
Speaker 1: by the way, who are calling the Republican syprocrits, and
Speaker 1: I think they're wrong, and I say this with a
Speaker 1: modicum of respect. I don't think the two are the
Speaker 1: same thing. The Senate can make whatever rules it wants
Speaker 1: for itself, Paula. If if Reid wants to try to
Speaker 1: overturn filibuster rule and get rid of sixty votes in
Speaker 1: the center, let him try. If he can get the
Speaker 1: votes for it, then they've got a new rule. That's
Speaker 1: how they operate. Fine and dandy. It's up to them
Speaker 1: to make their rules. The President can't tell them what
Speaker 1: they have to do, and and the courts can't tell
Speaker 1: them what they have to do, but the Senate cannot
Speaker 1: in any way restrict what the executive does. So using
Speaker 1: the filibuster to get in the way of judicial nominations,
Speaker 1: that is what's if any hypocritical, that is what's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: And the Republicans were totally right to oppose that because
Speaker 1: that impacts the As I say, the president, he has
Speaker 1: a role in the selection of nominees because he selects them.
Speaker 1: They they they go through the confirmation process. But it's
Speaker 1: it's it's if if Reid wants to get rid of
Speaker 1: the filibuster, it's not automatically covering judicial nominees when he
Speaker 1: does it. That's there are two separate things. Well, I
Speaker 1: understand that, and I just see it as another power
Speaker 1: play by Read and company to try to just nullify
Speaker 1: the election results. Of course it is no, of course
Speaker 1: it is you want to throw it out the window.
Speaker 1: This was so important to him, Why didn't he do
Speaker 1: it two years ago? The fact that they because he
Speaker 1: had sixty votes two years ago until he lost. Scott
Speaker 1: Brown's simply exactly my point, or actually exactly my point.
Speaker 1: I just I just look at it, so you know, no,
Speaker 1: but you're right. But it's not the first time they've
Speaker 1: done things I can't remember the top of my head.
Speaker 1: But uh, Democrats lose power all of a sudden certain
Speaker 1: customs and laws and rules or all of a sudden outdated.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, as far as they're concerned, the whole
Speaker 1: constitutions could put now the whole Constitution is a I
Speaker 1: mean E. J. Dion Jr. In The Washington Post recently
Speaker 1: had a piece saying essentially that the Constitution nothing sacred
Speaker 1: about it. It's just it was just a political document
Speaker 1: and it was put together by virtue of political compromise,
Speaker 1: and therefore the people who don't agree with some of
Speaker 1: the political compromises of the day when the Constitution was
Speaker 1: ratified don't have to support it. I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: new liberal thinking that it's not the law of the land,
Speaker 1: it is not everything it is. It's no more than
Speaker 1: a piece of legislation from two hundred and fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: And if you don't like it, you don't like it,
Speaker 1: you have to abide by it. That's their new thinking
Speaker 1: that they they're the sorest losers. And and and this
Speaker 1: is why I've always said, there's no common ground here.
Speaker 1: The only thing for us to do is keep winning.
Speaker 1: The only thing to do is to keep beating them.
Speaker 1: They have no interest in working with us. They have
Speaker 1: no interest in common ground or bipartisan or anything. They
Speaker 1: are pure, unadulterated stalinist, terry tyranny type people. All they
Speaker 1: want to do is rule, not governed, and they have
Speaker 1: to be defeated every election. A little history lesson, uh,
Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen. The reason that we have the sixty
Speaker 1: vote rule and the Senate today for culture meaning sixty
Speaker 1: votes to stop debate and moved to voting on the bill,
Speaker 1: essentially sixty votes to pass the bill. The only reason
Speaker 1: we have that, the so called filibuster is because the
Speaker 1: Democrats changed the rules in nine seventy five when they
Speaker 1: had a big Senate majority after Watergate and they were
Speaker 1: trying to make sure that they couldn't be stopped. I
Speaker 1: had to have sixty vote rule. That's when it started Watergate.
Speaker 1: The change was initiated by Walter F. Mondo, who was
Speaker 1: soon to become vice president for Jim McCarter, who then
Speaker 1: would then get shellacked the second term of Renaulda's magnus.
Speaker 1: But that's when this whole sixty vote business. In the
Speaker 1: old days, my old days, in sixties, if you were
Speaker 1: gonna filibuster, you damn will had to stand up in
Speaker 1: her filibuster. You had to stay to start talking and
Speaker 1: not stop. And they change the rules. Philipbuster can mean God,
Speaker 1: you need sixty votes, sixty votes to stop debate, sixty
Speaker 1: votes to stop somebody from speaking who's really not speaking.
Speaker 1: But and that happened. So again, the Senate as well
Speaker 1: as the House can change their there's new rules in
Speaker 1: the House as to day Banner was announcing them. They've
Speaker 1: got a rules committee. The Republicans run it. They can
Speaker 1: set the rules, and the Democrats have no choice because
Speaker 1: they don't have the votes to beat them. So it's
Speaker 1: a it's the way it's set up. And the Democrats
Speaker 1: run the Senate still and they can set the rules
Speaker 1: they want. Now they want to get rid of sixty
Speaker 1: because they know where near sixty and there aren't enough Olympians,
Speaker 1: Snows and Susan Collins is in there to get them
Speaker 1: to sixty even if all the Democrats hold, So of
Speaker 1: course sixty it's not fair. The Democrats can't they're running
Speaker 1: the Howard the Senate, but they can't getting done because
Speaker 1: it's stupid sixty vote requirement that we put in ourselves
Speaker 1: back in nine. Now they want to get rid of
Speaker 1: it since they can't get there. It is what it is,
Speaker 1: and we'll see if I mean, they're gonna need even
Speaker 1: Republican votes for that. You got that passed