Putting liberals who don’t understand how laws work is really the issue.
Check it out:
I wonder who she could be talking about. Some justices are very proud of the fact they get all their news from AM radio. That’s not what the justices have said. There are some justices who have said that they really enjoy talk radio, not that it’s their only source of things. And there are some justices who have said that they don’t bother reading the New York Times. It’s not that they don’t read newspapers. It’s that they don’t read the New York Times.
What does that have to do with what these guys do? They are dealing with legal issues and the events that are related to cases before them. They’re not supposed to take into account the social concerns of things. They’re not supposed to look at election returns, although it has long been thought that they do.
How many of you have believed, like Lithwick says (imitating Lithwick), “And they don’t even hire clerks that disagree with them. They don’t even challenge themselves. They just hire a bunch of people that agree with them and they sit there and they pontificate and that’s why there’s a partisan divide.” And, of course, she’s talking about the conservative justices. Do you think the libs have ever hired right-wing clerks to argue with ’em? It’s absurd!
How many of you have grown up or otherwise believe that when the Supreme Court first takes a case, that they sit in a room and discuss it and try to persuade each other that they’re right and that they should agree with their take? How many of you believe that happens? I used to think that’s what happened. I used to think that the Supreme Court was collaborative. After oral arguments or at some point during the decision-making period of the case that they would sit down and chat about the case and they would share their points of view and try to persuade each other.Continue reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com