RUSH: I hadn't planned on starting with abortion as the primary subject matter today, but I've got to because there's something going on here, folks, and even the Drive-By Media is a little concerned over Judge Roberts -- Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts. Very, very, very concerned. Not quite sure what to make of what's happening here. And here's why.

Justice Roberts has done it again. He joined the four lockstep Democrat justices whose job on the court is much different than the conservatives. The liberal judges just make sure they come down on the correct agenda side of every case to advance the leftist cause, to advance liberalism, whatever. It doesn't matter how they get there; that is the objective.

And they are always in lockstep. They never split. Well, it's not... I mean just last week there was a 7-2 ruling, and some of the libs joined the conservatives. Those are very rare cases that genuinely do not involve the advancement of the leftist agenda. So, once again Justice Roberts -- who, as you remember, was appointed by George W. Bush on the pretext that he was a conservative.

He was one of these guys, he and Alito. These guys are gonna lead the court into the future. And I've told you before, I've had a number of people say to me, "Rush, you're wrong to be worried about Kennedy. You're wrong to be worried, 'cause the chief... Keep a sharp eye. The chief is the next Kennedy. The chief wants to be the next Kennedy. Just focus your attention there."

I've been told that by number of people that turned out to be right about it. But this case here is a flip-flop. Justice Roberts has flip-flopped. He joined the four lockstep Democrat justices to rule that laws requiring doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It's a Louisiana law. And it said if you're gonna do abortions, you better have admitting privilege.

If you're an abortionist doctor, you better have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital if something goes wrong. That law was shot down today because Roberts joined the left saying that it violates abortion rights as spelled out in Roe v. Wade. But the problem is, the Louisiana law that was struck down today is virtually identical to a law in Texas that the court stood up for in 2016. Well, no, no. They...

I'm sorry. What happened is the court struck it down in 2016, but back then Roberts dissented in the Texas case and did not join the Democrat justices. Same case, different state, and justice flip-flops -- Justice Roberts flip-flops. In Louisiana, he made it clear that he couldn't side with the conservatives on this case because it violates Roe v. Wade.

But in 2016, almost an identical law from the state of Texas, Roberts dissented. So everybody's wondering, "What's going on here? This is not a matter of law." The theory is something beyond the judgment of law or the adjudication of the case and the case law specifically is going on here with Roberts because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense intellectually.

It doesn't make any sense judicially. And, of course, now this end result leaves us with two different standards in Texas and Louisiana. If you abort babies and you're not required to have doctors with admitting privileges in one state while other doctors are required to have admitting privileges, then how in the world is the health of women being promoted here? Isn't that the point?

The left puts abortion law forward as, "We must do everything we can to protect the health of women!" Well, now in Louisiana the health of women has been thrown out the window because if you go in to have an abortion your doctor who is doing the abortion does not have to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, meaning if something goes wrong in Louisiana, the abortion doctor you choose doesn't have to be able to get you in the hospital to fix whatever's gone wrong.

In Texas, it's the opposite. So what does this mean, ladies and gentlemen? Well, there's all kinds of speculation going on out there. One of the questions being asked -- not by me, by the way. One of the questions being asked is, "What do the Democrats have on Roberts? What could they possibly be blackmailing him with?" You know, there's a... He adopted a child, and some people say -- not me.

There's some people who say there's something fishy about it. And before you go berserk out there, before you get mad at my speculating that Roberts could be blackmailed, you need to remember Nancy Pelosi and the entire media, the entire Democrat Party... She said again yesterday, "Putin has something on Trump and is blackmailing him."

And that's over this controversy over whether Trump knew or didn't know that there were bounties from the Taliban on American soldiers. Trump says, "I didn't know anything about it. It wasn't in the presidential daily brief," and when he says he didn't know anything about it, Pelosi says, "Oh, my God! I can't believe that. What have they got on him? What do they got?

"Putin's gotta be blackmailing him." It was worse than that. Putin was "running" Trump. Trump was a traitor. Trump was a Russian agent all during the three to four years of the ongoing coup, remember? So don't get mad at me for suggesting that there's some blackmail possible here, 'cause it's free and clear. If the Democrats want to allege it be with want to accuse it, fine and dandy.

Somebody turns around and says, "This doesn't make sense. Somebody's got something on Roberts." They immediately shoot it down and say, "Impermissible!" I don't think it's that, myself. I think something else is going on, and I'm not sure what it is. It could be one of two things. I'm of the opinion that Roberts hates Trump on the basis that Roberts is your classic establishment figure, classic inside-the-Beltway elitist.

By the way, in terms of elitist, I don't mean (in Roberts' case) arrogant, 'cause I don't know him. But, I mean, he's in the club and he's one of the high-ranking members of the club. He is the elite of the elite. He has sought that position, he has achieved it, and this is how he maintains it.

He's a Never Trumper, and he does what he can as a Never Trumper on the bench. The other side of the theory, however, is fascinating. Here's audio sound bite number one. This is Jeffrey Toobin at CNN today, and they're not... At CNN, they've got mixed emotions about this ruling. Toobin says "something is going on with Roberts."

TOOBIN: Something is going on with John Roberts. Louisiana passes a law that's almost identical to the Texas law, and here Roberts switched places because, he says, "Stare Decisis, the rule of precedent, requires --

SCIUTTO: Mmm.

TOOBIN: "-- that we honor the decision of a couple years ago even though I disagreed with it at the time."

SCIUTTO: Mmm.

TOOBIN: What that suggests is that Roe v. Wade may need one more justice --

RUSH: A-ha.

TOOBIN: -- from President Trump in order to win. Because if John Roberts feels this precedent needs to be honored, Roe v. Wade is an even more well-established precedent.

RUSH: A-ha. So you see, they're worried that this ruling from Roberts is going to revive and enhance the Trump campaign on the basis we now know Roberts cannot be depended on. He is not one of the conservative justices, and it'd be silly to count on him as such as the Supreme Court takes cases. Meaning Trump needs one more. Meaning there are going to be some retirements on the left side because of age alone.

So Toobin is very, very worried here that this is going to revive Trump's campaign, it's gonna revive Trump's base, it's gonna awaken some people who maybe are getting worn out with all the Trump drama. I don't know what percentage of Trump's base that would apply to, but they're clearly worried. They're not celebrating this ruling as you would expect them to, folks. They normally... They'd be celebrating this!

"Oh, my God. Roe v. Wade is more solid than ever before." They're worried because, remember: There's something more important right now than even Roe v. Wade -- and you may not agree with me, but that something more important is getting rid of D.J. Trump. That, right now, is more important than abortion, 'cause they think they got abortion in the bag.

They know it's gonna take a number of cases before the Supreme Court to literally and actually overturn Roe v. Wade. It's not gonna happen in one case. But if this ruling... Now, are they thinking that Roberts is a closet Trump supporter, and decided this case for the libs purposely to irritate the Trump base? (impression) "You know, because Roberts is a smart guy. He may be the smartest guy (outside of Obama) in the Washington establishment.

"And therefore, he may know what's necessary to revive the Trump base to the extent that it needs to be -- or to fire them up even more," and they're worried about that. Here, move down to sound bite number three. This is CNN today. And here they're making the point that this decision puts the Supreme Court back on the ballot, and they are worried about it.

SCIUTTO: I am sure that somebody is already writing a Trump campaign ad on this right now saying, vote for me, I'll bring you another justice.

SIDDIQUI: That was really a rallying cry for conservatives to get behind someone like Trump who, of course, was unorthodox and controversial in more ways than we can list. And so I think that, in many ways, it could put the Supreme Court back on the ballot because clearly, uh, two justices were not enough for President Trump based on some of these decisions.

RUSH: Now, let me add to this because the reason why, ladies and gentlemen, this is, to me, of immense curiosity and importance, you go to back to the Trump rally in Tulsa. One of the telepromptered points that he made, which means that, you know, the campaign made sure certain messages -- certain message points, if you will -- were stated and emphasized by the president.

That's the purpose of the prompter during a campaign year at a Trump rally. Make sure you get these points made, if you've got four central messages you're trying to get out there -- three, whatever it is. And one of them was that the Supreme Court is gonna have an opening and how great Trump's nominees have been to date and we need even more of them.

And then Trump is talking about how by the end of his term this year there will have been 300 judges confirmed and we need even more -- and you remember what the reaction to that was? There were people -- learned academics, learned think tank pundits -- who wrote that Trump was really botching it. "Oh, my God. This isn't 2016," they said.

"You can't run on replacing Scalia again. You can't do that! You can't! You gotta get with it. The 2016 playbook is not gonna fly here. This business of the Supreme Court and the importance of the nominees is not on people's minds right now. What's on their minds, is saving the country from the mob." Well, now guess what? With this ruling today -- and the ruling last week where Roberts again undermined Trump -- the left is very, very worried.

They're not celebrating. And it makes it look like Trump knew exactly what he was doing at his rally talking about the importance of the Supreme Court still, and the next nominee and perhaps the next nominee after that. I remember when I watched the Tulsa rally, I myself said, "Come on. You gotta move it forward. You can't replay the 2016 playbook," and, by the way, don't misunderstand. The whole rally was not that.

There was a lot of forward thinking and future looking. But this, to me, is fascinating 'cause I was expecting the left to be celebrating today, and I was expecting them to be celebrating Roberts today and to talk about, "All right! This cements Roe v. Wade! Oh my God, we are in there, and Roe v. Wade is more secure than ever before," and I expected them to be lavishing praise on Roberts, and it isn't happening -- and Roberts did flip-flop.

He came down on both sides of essentially the same law -- and in this case, it was to go against Trump. In 2016, that was a campaign year; Trump was not yet president. So Roberts was freer to actually vote without the ingredient of Never Trump status as a factor. 'Cause I don't think there's any question he's a Never Trumper.

Now, a lot of you may disagree. You may think that he's a stealth Trump supporter and knows what he's doing here. It won't be long before we find out. But the bottom line is that this is a surprising aftermath to this ruling, just looking at the Drive-By Democrat media.

About Rush Limbaugh

WTAG · Worcester's News, Traffic, & Weather Station