Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Brief Stops Short of Bush Speech (Folks, I really don't relish the next words)RUSH
rushlimbaughshow ^ | 1/17/2003 | RushLimbaugh

Posted on 01/17/2003 4:09:44 PM PST by TLBSHOW

White House Brief Stops Short of Bush Speech

January 17, 2003

Folks, I really don't relish the next words, sentences, and paragraphs, which you will read on this page or hear from my mouth in the audio links below. There is some angst today in the conservative legal community over the University of Michigan case and the brief filed by the Bush administration late Thursday night near the midnight deadline, and how this brief differs in scope from the president's amazing speech.

Now, the mainstream press, of course, is late to pick up on this. We have several wire reports, which I read on Friday's program that lead with lines like, "President Bush is siding with white students in the most sweeping affirmative action case…" And they don't think they're biased? President Bush is siding with white students? No, President Bush is siding with the Constitution. It's the Fourteenth Amendment, which is being largely ignored by those in the mainstream press. He's siding with the Constitution, not siding with white students or white people or white anybody.

That being said, our legal advisors here at the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute have read the brief filed by the Bush administration. We've studied it, and this position is not nearly as sweeping as that taken in the president's speech. In short, he does support overturning the policy of Michigan, but stops there and goes no further. The administration's brief contends that the admissions policy at Michigan does violate the Constitution, but the brief does not say that the use of race violates the Constitution. And that's the key.

Race-based anything violates the Constitution. No such discrimination is allowed, but the brief doesn't attack that, it only attacks the specific admissions policy at the University of Michigan. The Constitution does not outlaw all forms of discrimination, but it does prohibit discrimination based on race, and in some cases it discriminates or prohibits discrimination based on gender and religion.

The brief does not challenge racial preferences in college admissions. It accepts, in fact, the fact that race-based diversity is a constitutionally proper goal. So in the brief, as opposed to the speech the president made, the administration is not opposed to the goal, but merely Michigan's practice by which it was achieved.

Here is the upshot: The president's compelling speech certainly suggested he was taking on the whole issue of race-based preferences. This is why everybody was so excited. This is why you want a conservative in the White House, to stop a mess like affirmative action. It pits groups of people against each other and it stigmatizes people who benefit from it. There's nothing positive about it. The president's opponents predictably in their criticism certainly suggested that he was taking on the issue of race-based preferences.

After hearing the president speak, and from that reaction from the left, the press, pundits and all the rest of us concluded that Bush was challenging racial preferences in college admissions. But his administration's brief - I'm sorry to say, folks - doesn't do that.

Listen to Rush...

(…compare media reports of the president's position, with the actual brief) (…continue the legal analysis of the brief filed by the White House)

Read the Articles...

(AP: Bush Brief on Affirmative Action Due) (USA Today: White House to oppose Michigan policy of race-based admissions) (Reuters: Bush Lawyers Urge Top Court to Back White Students)

Read the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 1threadisenough; annhatetodd; annnowanttodd; hehateme; noonelovetodd; onetrackmind; pleasekissitann; rushuberalles; tlbknowsbest; tlbonetrackmind; tlbspew; tlbwantfries; trentlottisgod; whitehousebrief
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-344 next last
To: Howlin
I did. How can a guy who makes so many mistakes be so popular?


I think it's his Ratings on Personal Qualities and Characteristics

They are up there fairly high
121 posted on 01/17/2003 7:36:18 PM PST by deport (A sheckle or two keeps the lights on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Creed wrote that? Wow. I thought I hated that band. Please tell me the music to it is potable.
122 posted on 01/17/2003 7:37:21 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Mr Levin had more input into Rush's monologue than I'd thought.

I think he was just too optimistic about what could be done with this case at this time.
I can't fault his Constitutional reasons for his opinion of how the case should be handled- as usual they are right on IMHO.

And I hope we soon have the judges, and justices, that will rule as the Constitution requires.

123 posted on 01/17/2003 7:38:48 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
President Bush only held that Press Conference and gave that spectacular speech to confuse and fool all of us.

Could it be that our president wishes to allow his opponents the opportunity to rabidly support quotas?

124 posted on 01/17/2003 7:44:41 PM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
Um, what you do with pot and Creed is your own bid'ness.
125 posted on 01/17/2003 7:48:40 PM PST by rintense (Go Get 'Em, Dubya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
"But there are times to compromise, and times to lead. Abraham Lincoln was all elbows, and his cause was righteous."

President Bush IS leading...and he's doing so in a time that is vastly different from Lincoln's. ~ Lincoln HAD to push his principles through with his elbows and shoulders. ~ because it was the most effective way to pierce the fog of war.

Today, while we live in a moment when the overwhelming number of Americans are ready to end Affirmative Action as it is now written ~ this same majority is not prepared to appear unconcerned about "minorities".

Lincoln's principles are alive and they are well. It is up to us to encourage them by using the tools available to us in the times in which we live.

President Bush is doing this; and I support his convictions and applaud political acumen.

126 posted on 01/17/2003 7:50:47 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I can't fault his Constitutional reasoning either, I looked at the case law used in the brief and I think Ted Olsen decided to bolster the case instead of arguing it. Maybe I'm wrong, But I have always thought a "Friend of the Court" brief submitted by the Executive Branch should not duplicate the argument already submitted. And considering that this is a case that has very little case law to work with or rely upon anyway. I think the Lawyers who were able to push this case all the way to the SCOTUS should be the one arguing the Constitutionality of it.

But I'm no Lawyer or do I pretend to be. I was just hoping for a little more input from Mark

127 posted on 01/17/2003 7:52:10 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc
"Could it be that our president wishes to allow his opponents the opportunity to rabidly support quotas?"

Could be, he does have a way of exposing them for what they are.

STRATEGERY :-)

128 posted on 01/17/2003 7:56:18 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"Is Rush wrong? I don't think so."

Yes, friend, Rush is wrong on this one...he's fallen prey to two political traps: ~ frustration and short-sightedness.

129 posted on 01/17/2003 7:57:45 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: rintense
You brought up Creed. I never smoked it. I was pleased to read those lyrics, though.
130 posted on 01/17/2003 7:59:57 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
I thought about smoking it a few times, But I was afraid I would become a Libertarian :-)
131 posted on 01/17/2003 8:01:21 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
Maybe patience really is a virtue of a saint ;^)
132 posted on 01/17/2003 8:03:24 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: rintense
That sums it up like Falco's "Amadeus" sums it up.
133 posted on 01/17/2003 8:04:24 PM PST by Senator Pardek (I luv crackpots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
Wait a second. I brought up Creed, not pot. Anyhow, some of their lyrics might surprise you. Of course it's my opinion, but the song 'What If' reminds me a TON of x42.
134 posted on 01/17/2003 8:07:26 PM PST by rintense (Go Get 'Em, Dubya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: deport; Howlin
TLB is just roasing the administration's feet...Dont you smell the toasted toes?

I dont have a dog in this fight, Im a white, used to be(before the stock market crash)rich guy and my daughter is in private school...but maybe we are watching incrementalism in reverse...
135 posted on 01/17/2003 8:07:36 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Oh you be quiet.
136 posted on 01/17/2003 8:08:36 PM PST by rintense (Go Get 'Em, Dubya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Never touched the stuff. I have too much respect for my body. Plus, I've seen first hand what it does thanks to my idiot brother.
137 posted on 01/17/2003 8:09:25 PM PST by rintense (Go Get 'Em, Dubya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; holdonnow
I was just afraid I'd fall asleep to anything by Creed. But dope always did put me to sleep.

That and stupid argument. Would someone please tell me the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education today???

138 posted on 01/17/2003 8:09:27 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: rintense
(hehe)!
139 posted on 01/17/2003 8:10:50 PM PST by cmsgop ( I am not gonna see Lord of the Rings Jhoffa !!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cmsgop; rintense
I'm a Rush fan - sue me!
140 posted on 01/17/2003 8:13:22 PM PST by Senator Pardek (I luv crackpots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-344 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson