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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 341-344 next last
To: Joe Hadenuf
Bait that nasty cliquish, racial trap........

I'm amazed you aren't struck by lightening for accusing ME of baiting a racial trap.

Anybody here can click on your replies and see who the racist is in this little exchange.

161 posted on 01/17/2003 9:18:21 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
Simpleton I am and with a few Bud's in my belly, here's my simplerton view of the Brown case. Of course I could be totally wrong, but here's my take on it.

1. Brown wanted EQUAL opportunity to compete, not begging for preferential handout solely due to his race. He wanted to get in the golf course where he could shoot 67 on 18 holes, didn't want guilt ridden handicap pity points. ??

2. Today it means treating minority groups (excluding those who excel in edumacashion without the handouts) like some sub-human by saying that they need the extra 200+ points to get on the even ground with the rest of the race. Brown should be insulted.

3. The preferential treatment becomes the very obstacle Brown and the "minority" wanted/needed to overcome.

I am making sense only in my head I know, because I'm not as articulate as you, but it's not my fault. I wasn't given the 200+ extra points.

162 posted on 01/17/2003 9:19:26 PM PST by Chong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Call in all the lackys and slack jawed followers.....
163 posted on 01/17/2003 9:21:04 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Call in all the lackys and slack jawed followers.....

You're already here.

164 posted on 01/17/2003 9:21:48 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
You came here Jose, And I might add, In your usual flair
165 posted on 01/17/2003 9:22:04 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Anybody here can click on your replies and see who the racist is in this little exchange.

And to keep the digital record straight, could you be a little specific on these nasty accusations of vile finger pointing of racism.....

166 posted on 01/17/2003 9:23:11 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
well, fancy meeting you here:

Somebody said this about you last night:

a poster makes a vile, offensive, racial insinuation to a comment I made regarding President Bush and conservatism

And they didn't even ping you!

167 posted on 01/17/2003 9:27:20 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Why don't you go and fart in someone else's elevator. Your never on topic, Just inflamatory remarks and play the victim when someones calls you on it
168 posted on 01/17/2003 9:27:30 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Just inflamatory remarks

Which remarks were those?

169 posted on 01/17/2003 9:28:51 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
ROFLMAO, Your posting history looks like it should be proudly displayed on David Dukes Website. I have never seen you make one single remark that was anything but inflamatory
170 posted on 01/17/2003 9:31:09 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Why would you have him arrested? Is he a Mexican, too?"

Hehehehehehehe...........
Yep, I've read plenty of his posts in the past and I must say that you are a 'race trap' for not agreeing with him.

171 posted on 01/17/2003 9:32:03 PM PST by Chong (Sarcasm tag 54, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Just inflamatory remarks

Which remarks were those?

172 posted on 01/17/2003 9:32:14 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; holdonnow
"but if Bush and Olsen do not waste their breath, and the Court's time, being redundant, they have caved?"

If you're Landmark Legal, apparently you call it "splitting the baby to give cover to O'Connor and Kennedy."

Myself, I see that not as a legal argument, but as hyperbole. I've seen better legal arguments from people on this thread that I didn't know were attorneys.

173 posted on 01/17/2003 9:32:18 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Chong
Hehehehehehehe...........

Good response Chong.....

174 posted on 01/17/2003 9:33:04 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
If I was you, I don't think I would be laughing at that remark. Comprehension Joe, Comprehension
175 posted on 01/17/2003 9:35:00 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Chong
Now there's a challenge.

Are you sure that "Brown wanted EQUAL opportunity to compete, not begging for preferential handout solely due to his race"?

I'm with you on that. I think so. That case is so central to this issue that I can't begin to understand why we've ignored it on the conservative side. I see it labeled "judicial activism" in the liberal press. I don't take it that way. Seems to me a fundamental statement, consistent with American ideals. I think the liberal elevation of it has shorn it of its essentially conservative nature.

Nobody's disagreed, anyway, including you.

No, no, you affirm it:

The preferential treatment becomes the very obstacle Brown and the "minority" wanted/needed to overcome.
Bing! Twenty points!
176 posted on 01/17/2003 9:35:38 PM PST by nicollo (Deducting 20 points per drink. That puts me in the hole by a fifth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Why don't you go and fart in someone else's elevator. Your never on topic, Just inflamatory remarks and play the victim when someones calls you on it

This is the third time I have asked you, WHAT INFLAMATORY REMARKS??

177 posted on 01/17/2003 9:36:22 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
Never post and watch a basketball game on tv at the same time. I feel like an idiot,I know what Bakke was-sorry!. My impression today was that the brief filed did not go far enough and didn't ask specifically that race preferences be discarded in all college admission processes-just amended at the University of Michigan. Even though the University of Michigan is the school being sued-could the SCOTUS expand their ruling to include all universities-( assuming they rule against the U of M)?Or are they totally limited to just the U of M? If this is still unclear and it well may be at this late hour,I'll try again tomorrow. Thanks.
178 posted on 01/17/2003 9:39:05 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue (Rockets win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Would you mind asking me for a fourth time?
179 posted on 01/17/2003 9:40:15 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf; MJY1288
"Good response Chong....."

Thanks, it shore was, wasn't it?

180 posted on 01/17/2003 9:41:29 PM PST by Chong (Sarcasm tag 54, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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