Rush Limbaugh proves he is the Truth Detector:
I think -- and I don't know who; it's a bunch of people, but I think -- in the White House, there is a view of the conservative base that says that the conservative base is pretty much monolithic and all they really care about is Roe vs. Wade. So if we nominate somebody that we can convince them is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, that we can count on the conservatives in our back pocket. That's the miscalculation. A lot of people think that the conservative base is only the so-called religious right, it has only a single-issue concern, and that is abortion. As I tried to explain on this program, the conservative base isn't monolithic, is made up of huge numbers of people who have varying disagreements on things, and you've heard it yourself. You've heard of the social conservatives, and you've heard of the fiscal conservatives, and then there are the religious conservatives. There are probably more demarcations or delineations than even those three, but if somebody somewhere thinks that you can sew up the right wing by simply having a candidate that's going to do and say the right thing when it comes to Roe vs. Wade you are sadly mistaken, and you terribly misunderstand the makeup of the right wing. As I've said over and over, the problem with Roe vs. Wade is not just abortion, because, folks, I know plenty of people who are honest people who are very, very pro-abortion who also tell me that they think Roe vs. Wade is rotten law, and it is. It's rotten law. 
Forget the abortion component. What happened was that seven justices of the Supreme Court invented a law. They said that abortion is constitutional, and there's no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and there's no mention of the "right to privacy," which was the foundation of that decision, which comes from Griswold vs. Connecticut 1965. So basically you had seven pro-abortion justices say, "Ooh, look what I see in the Constitution here!" Bammo! and that's that. Well, the problem is that if you can get seven or five, a majority, five justices who can see something in the Constitution that isn't there and then proclaim it a law, you have just rendered the Constitution meaningless, and that was the opening of the modern floodgates, if you will, to all kinds of judicial activism. Kelo decision, to name one, using foreign law to overturn states' rights on such things as same-sex sodomy and that sort of thing. It's very, very troubling to people who think the Constitution is the glue that holds the country together. When you get right down to it, when five liberal justices can say, "You know what, what we believe will never be voted on by the people because we're in the minority, but we have the power as judges to make it law. We'll do that," then what good is the Constitution? That's exactly what's happened here.
