White House Brief Stops Short of Bush Speech (Folks, I really don't relish the next words)RUSH

rushlimbaughshow ^ | 1/17/2003 | RushLimbaugh

[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...

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[spokeshave]

Nice move....the rabid lefties get egg of their collecive faces again

[MJY1288]

Didn't you do this earlier.

I have these questions for you....1) Which side of the case did this administration submit a "Friend of the Court" brief in support of? ANSWER THAT

.

2) The next question I have for you and the entertainer on EIB is..... Who is argueing the case in front of the nine Justices of the SCOTUS?

.

And 3) Next..... Do you think the nine justices heard the speech Bush gave on this subject?

.

The answers are:

1) The Students

2) The lawyers for the Students

3)Yes they did, Loud and clear

[jammer]

No, Bush gets pilloried as a racist and does not argue for the result we want. With the exception of Reagan, mostly, that's what we get--Pubbies take a half-assed position, not enough to do any real good, but reap all the negatives. Sheesh.

[Ben Ficklin]

I don't know where you or Rush get your news, but this was widely reported on the 15th.

[Brett66]

It seems like SEVERAL briefs would be filed and it's very likely one of these parties would include the other parts that the presidential side lacks.

[WOSG]

It is a key point though if 'diversity' as a goal is viewed as consituionally permissible reason to accout for race.
The reason this is a concern is that we know the colleges would just love to play the race-quota game if they can... so it is not just the ruling, but how secure the USSC locks the door on racial preferences. we've seen before (eg in govt contracting) how one ruling is evaded through subtle means. ... we shall see.

OTOH, judicial restraint demands that the court rule no more widley than they have to. ... you may get 3 to abolish all preferences (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist), 4 to vote of UM (souter/ginsberg/breyer/stevens) and 2 in the middle to try to have a narrow ruling. maybe the brief is written for the 2 in the middle.


I am not super concerned since I knew from the outset the Supreme Court Will Decide, not the administration. Even a non-sweeping brief is more courage than no brief at all.

[TLBSHOW]

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[WOSG]

I think you are wrong ... Bush argued a 'compassionate conservative' position that acknowledge that we want and need fairness, but that racial quotes were illegimate and unconstitutional ways to attempt 'fairness' and 'equality'.

[MJY1288]

"It seems like SEVERAL briefs would be filed and it's very likely one of these parties would include the other parts that the presidential side lacks."

There you go injecting common sense into this thread, Don't you know President Bush only held that Press Conference and gave that spectacular speech to confuse and fool all of us. He really want's to support Affirmative Action, Dontcha know? < /sarcasm > off

[TLBSHOW]

Section 4.

But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States,
or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave;

but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Positive]

I've read read all 5 Articles of the 14th Amendment several times and I can't find any reference to race anywhere in it.

I saw Ann Coulter on some cable new channel last night and she too referred to the 14th amendment and even elaborated that "race" was the main aspect of it but I can't find it.

The closest thing I can find is this clause from the first Article: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...</>

[TLBSHOW]

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.

rush

[MJY1288]

Do you know what a "Friend of the Court" brief is Potty Mouth?

[MJY1288]

It's not Bush's job to argue the case, They are supporting the lawyers who are. Rush Limbaugh and his so-called legal advisors just want attention from the weakest links who jump at every change to wollow in their own misery

[Ben Ficklin]

When you can't make a case, the first thing to do is call everyone a butt-licker.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Bush argued a 'compassionate conservative' position that acknowledge that we want and need fairness, but that racial quotes were illegimate and unconstitutional ways to attempt 'fairness' and 'equality'.

Sorry, but there is no moral difference between a "quota" and another type of racial preference when the effect is the same.

In the Michigan case, the University gives a certain number of points, for being a member of certain groups, in a mechanical admissions process. Bush is against that. But what if the college admissions officers gave the same amount of racial preference, but in an informal way through admissions committees stacked with liberals? The unadulterated truth is that the President is fine with that.

George W. Bush, like the good politician he is, wants to compromise on most issues, including this one. And I don't like that.

[MJY1288]

That's the same tactic the RATS use.... Go-figure