Limbaugh
I forgot to include Limbaugh's bizarre comments in my last post. They're under the cut:
"For how many years were they talking about gay marriage? How many years were they talking about demonizing the SUV? That started in 1995. Here it is 14 years later, and they're on the verge of doing it. Liberals don't stop. It's like the Soviets. They didn't have four-year plans based on the service of term of their leader. They had forever plans, and if you had to take a year off, maybe a step back before you took two steps forward, then fine. But they had the objective, it was there, and whenever it got done was fine, as long as you're always working for it. Same thing with Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is taking over the banks now. Hugo Chavez is nationalizing the oil industry. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we're getting, you know, an early sign of what Chavez did by watching things happen here. But they don't stop.
"This is why an electoral majority needs to happen in order to defeat these people, and even after they're defeated, they try to go around it in other ways, getting judges, like unanimous decision in Iowa today, with the Supreme Court, unanimous, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I guarantee you, if we could go dig up James Madison and say, 'Mr. Madison, did you intend for the Constitution to say people of the same sex could get married?' And I guarantee you he would have the reaction, 'What are you talking about? Are you sure you're asking me about the Constitution?' But then the four judges, whatever the number, they're unanimous in the Iowa Supreme Court, have just said what they think the Constitution says.
Whatever his intellectual shortcomings may be, Limbaugh does not share Steve King's base anti-intellectualism. Limbaugh may oppose most "intellectuals," but he is not anti-intellectual. This creates a conflict in Limbaugh's response to the Iowa Supreme Court. On the one hand, he wants to appeal to the populist argument on which gay marriage opponents rely: "Let the people/states decide! The opinion of hundreds of millions of Americans overrides the opinion of a few fruity judges!" But Limbaugh knows that, in order to interpret the law, intelligent judges must necessarily "legislate from the bench" from time to time. Limbaugh even knows that this is a good and necessary thing. That's why his populist tirade disintegrates into speculation about James Madison's response to gay marriage. Why would Madison's response matter if electoral majorities ought to decide the issue? Why even bring it up? Because Limbaugh knows that Madison's response would carry weight, because the Constitution carries weight, and because - in many cases - the letter of the law must override the will of the masses. And you need intelligent, literate people to discern and debate the letter of the law, because if we left it up to the masses, our president would be picking cotton in Trent Lott's backyard and I wouldn't be able to live off my wife's salary.
"For how many years were they talking about gay marriage? How many years were they talking about demonizing the SUV? That started in 1995. Here it is 14 years later, and they're on the verge of doing it. Liberals don't stop. It's like the Soviets. They didn't have four-year plans based on the service of term of their leader. They had forever plans, and if you had to take a year off, maybe a step back before you took two steps forward, then fine. But they had the objective, it was there, and whenever it got done was fine, as long as you're always working for it. Same thing with Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is taking over the banks now. Hugo Chavez is nationalizing the oil industry. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we're getting, you know, an early sign of what Chavez did by watching things happen here. But they don't stop.
"This is why an electoral majority needs to happen in order to defeat these people, and even after they're defeated, they try to go around it in other ways, getting judges, like unanimous decision in Iowa today, with the Supreme Court, unanimous, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I guarantee you, if we could go dig up James Madison and say, 'Mr. Madison, did you intend for the Constitution to say people of the same sex could get married?' And I guarantee you he would have the reaction, 'What are you talking about? Are you sure you're asking me about the Constitution?' But then the four judges, whatever the number, they're unanimous in the Iowa Supreme Court, have just said what they think the Constitution says.
Whatever his intellectual shortcomings may be, Limbaugh does not share Steve King's base anti-intellectualism. Limbaugh may oppose most "intellectuals," but he is not anti-intellectual. This creates a conflict in Limbaugh's response to the Iowa Supreme Court. On the one hand, he wants to appeal to the populist argument on which gay marriage opponents rely: "Let the people/states decide! The opinion of hundreds of millions of Americans overrides the opinion of a few fruity judges!" But Limbaugh knows that, in order to interpret the law, intelligent judges must necessarily "legislate from the bench" from time to time. Limbaugh even knows that this is a good and necessary thing. That's why his populist tirade disintegrates into speculation about James Madison's response to gay marriage. Why would Madison's response matter if electoral majorities ought to decide the issue? Why even bring it up? Because Limbaugh knows that Madison's response would carry weight, because the Constitution carries weight, and because - in many cases - the letter of the law must override the will of the masses. And you need intelligent, literate people to discern and debate the letter of the law, because if we left it up to the masses, our president would be picking cotton in Trent Lott's backyard and I wouldn't be able to live off my wife's salary.