Surprise, Surprise: Limbaugh Is A Hypocrite

Filed in National by on June 5, 2009

The news Wednesday was that Rush Limbaugh said he might support Sotomayor after all. Here’s what he said:

We know she’s Catholic. We also know she has no record on abortion. Sonia Sotomayor being Catholic and having not said a word about abortion, I find that interesting. All libs who want to go anywhere in liberalism are pro-choice and they make no bones about it, she hasn’t said a word about it, which could mean that her private feelings are she’s pro-life.

If I could be convinced that Sonia Sotomayor might be the biggest hope for overturning Roe v. Wade down the line, then I might be persuaded to look at her nomination in a different light. I’m serious. I’m dead serious. I’m dead serious. Life, preserving life, to me, is a far more important issue — we can deal with the racism and the bigotry, that can be canceled out by other justices and so forth.

As Think Progress opines:

Limbaugh’s hope that Sotomayor will allow the anti-choice stance of the Catholic church to influence her rulings in the court room is a direct contradiction of his insistence last week that Sotomayor’s nomination must be stopped by conservatives because, as he argued, she would allow her personal experiences to influence her rulings from the bench.

In Limbaugh-land it’s o.k. if you allow your religion to influence your judicial decisions but not o.k. if you allow your race or gender to influence decisions (non-white and non-male, that is).

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dorian Gray says:

    “In Limbaugh-land it’s o.k. if you allow your religion to influence your judicial decisions…”. I would say this is true for mainstream Christian sects. I doubt you could make this statement for a Muslim, Morman or Hindu appointee.

  2. Good point. It’s only o.k. to use your religion to make decisions if it’s one of the proper religions in Limbaugh-land.

  3. So how is he hypocritical? Wouldn’t the slaughter of millions of people be more important than a few thousand people getting jobs they shouldn’t? You make no sense.

  4. cassandra m says:

    He is hypocritical because apparently this is part of the GOP ideological DNA. Working hard at spreading the lie that the Judge is a racist then turning around saying that whatever racism there might be is AOK if she shares your bankrupt ideology is the hypocrisy.

  5. RSmitty says:

    He’ll be issuing an apology to himself later today.

  6. Dorian Gray says:

    Can someone translate David’s comment into something I can understand. Engling or Italian is fine. I don’t speak incoherent idiot. What the fuck is he talking about?

    It’s hypocritical because overturning Roe in the court rather than in the legislature is so-called judicial activism, right? Yes or no?

    God damn you’re dim….

  7. Perry says:

    There is some opinion emerging suggesting that Sotomayor may be to the right of Souter in some areas, for example, crime. In detail, I don’t yet know what that means.

    The fact that she is Catholic, there is a reasonable concern that she may be anti-choice.

    It could well be that Repubs may shoot themselves in the foot to oppose this nominee.

    I find it noteworthy that Senatorial Repubs are soft-pedaling their opposition, leaving it just to a knit-pick here and there to keep the base happy.

    I feel that I need to be patient until more details on her rulings come out, as I may very well turn out to be not too favorably impressed!

  8. Perry says:

    Dorian, I don’t know what has happened with David. He’s changed!

    Note his inflammatory language, calling foetus’s people.

    David, at least please stick with the dictionary so we can exchange views instead of hell-fire and brimstone sermons.

  9. callerRick says:

    She’s possibly to the right of Souter on some issues; hence, it is unproductive for Republicans to vehemently resist her appointment.

    And I wouldn’t discount Roberts’ influence, down the road; the changing of judicial perspective is a two-way street.