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...

[hchutch]

That is the WORST-case scenario as I see it, and even then it's not a bad outcome for us, simply because some things would enter into our favor:

1. The schools will KNOW that students discriminated against because they are not black/Hispanic/Native American will sue.

2. The schools generally wish to avould lawsuits, particularly if the folks suing them will have a very good chance of winning.

3. In this case, the folks who sue will have that very good chance, because the lower courts will follow the lead of SCOTUS.

In other words, the schools will go along - if only to avoid lawsuits. And if they don't go along, the suits will be won and appeals dismissed, citing this case.

[TLBSHOW]

In other words, more color-coded government aid. http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_3996.shtml

[copycat]

Hey, bro, glad to see the adults are taking this thread back. In all probability, the lawyers for the students will be arguing that the UM policy is unConstitutional, and Bush has come out in public supporting that ideal. I'm sure SCOTUS is well aware of his speech.

By filing an amicus brief that only attacks the UM policy, but not the ENTIREITY of Affirmative Action, Bush shows the court a middle ground where they can rule without drawing heavy political fire. When SCOTUS rules against the UM policy only, and not against AA, critics in the media will report how this wasn't really a win for Bush, and that it was a narrow ruling. Shallow thinkers like TLBshow will deride for Bush and Terry Moran for punting.

But then comes the payoff...EVERY case that comes down the pike from here on out will reference the UM decision as PRECEDENT. Effectively, with the UM case as precedent, SCOTUS WILL have ended race-based preferences at all universities without allowing Big Race to accuse him of attacking or ending Affirmative Action.

Great tactic for those who think it through...even though the subtlety is lost on those who are unable to see the big picture.

FReegards...

[copycat]

Oops, meant to say that Terry Moran and Rush and TLBshow will deride Bush for punting on the overall issue,when in fact, the establishment of precedent will accomplish the same effect.

[RWG]

Is rush saying Bush is a rino?

[copycat]

Please reference my recent post to see how the establishment of PRECEDENT will effectively curtail race-based admissions policies without the having to take on the entireity of Affirmative Action.

In fact, a series of about three positive court rulings could neutralize AA and return us to a Martin Luther King style "colorblind" society.

[TLBSHOW]

GOVERNOR BUSH FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PREFERENCE CASE

Thursday, January 16, 2003

TALLAHASSEE – Governor Jeb Bush today filed an amicus brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should invalidate the University of Michigan’s race-based admissions policies.

The brief affirms Florida’s commitment to maintaining racially and ethnically diverse institutions of higher education, but argues that diversity can and should be attained through race-neutral means. The brief also informs the Supreme Court of Florida’s success, since the implementation of the One Florida Initiative,

in maintaining diversity in the State University System without resorting to race-based preferences.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824979/posts?page=1
,,,,,,,

Maybe President Bush needs to take lessons from his brother?

and Rush Limbaugh..

[jammer]

Of course I know, and I can even say and spell it in Latin, which I suppose you cannot. What does that have to do with your ridiculous attempt at defense of the brief?

[jammer]

Actually, I made sense. The totally opaque fog of the post I responded to angers me--and it should anger you. This if "Free Republic", not "Free Republicans".

[jammer]

I answered your question. Please answer mine or say that you cannot.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[jammer]

What angers me is that a tepid brief is worse than no brief at all. We haven't had a chance at fundamental change since Bakke, 25 years ago. And what does Bush do? Submit a brief that in fact undermines our position. In effect, it says, "do away with it at U of M, but don't change anything else." If the court follows that position, we will be another 25 years before another opportunity to stop the madness.

[jammer]

Your contrived offense is childish, also.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Thanks for different perspective. To a layperson like myself,yesterday's ruling seemed like a positive step,not an occasion for the rending of garments.To clarify a point about which I am still unclear-because no one has asked the SC to abolish AA,there is no way they will rule that way,using the Mich case as a springboard or opened door.So we won't see a hypothetical ruling like-"We believe the U of Mich violated the constitutional rights of the female students and any institution that follows this same pattern will be violating the rights of their applicants or employees." They won't take a specific and expand it to a general,because they were not asked to-even if every Justice felt AA was wrong.

[TLBSHOW]

And what does Bush do? Submit a brief that in fact undermines our position. In effect, it says, "do away with it at U of M, but don't change anything else." If the court follows that position, we will be another 25 years before another opportunity to stop the madness.


,,,,,

You are so right he had his chance and blew it big time.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Below is an example of you and several others attacking and baiting posters. There was absolutely nothing racist here and I was responding to another poster. And then you butted right in, and started your vile, offensive race baiting, here is your first, initial response to me on this thread, to set the record straight for all to see including you Jim.

To: jammer

I have gotten over my misperceived notions over this administration about one year ago.

My expectation ran high once Chucko was eliminated in the election. I no longer hold those expectations. No longer can I tell any of them apart.

I feel like I am at the ball game, hungry, and the hot dogs are going for 7 bucks each ......

115 posted on 01/17/2003 7:30 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: Right_in_Virginia

President Bush IS leading...and he's doing so in a time that is vastly different from Lincoln's.

Mr. Lincoln wouldn't even recognize the place, and they would arrest him if he showed up.......

154 posted on 01/17/2003 9:03 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

In the post above, I was agreeing with the poster..

To: Joe Hadenuf

and they would arrest him if he showed up.......

Why would you have him arrested? Is he a Mexican, too?

155 posted on 01/17/2003 9:07 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Pretty sad huh, Howlin. Again, you are the first one to bring up the race card. You libs are all the same. Make nasty, vile accusations of racism towards folks that don't agree with everything the Republicans are doings. You are a very hateful person and this just proves it again. Take a hard look at my post and yours, to see who is doing the instigating here. It should be very obvious to anyone reading this thread.

And after your vile, offensive remark, your buddy steps in and accuses me of changing the issues. You know, your buddy MJY1288. The one that can make totally off the wall insinuations of racism and the moderators don't say a word. Oh, you remember all right. And then this guy has the freaking gall to make this statement

To: Howlin; Joe Hadenuf Well lookie here, I guess that 2 day Hacienda wasn't enough for Jose

157 posted on 01/17/2003 9:14 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

And in this one below, due to your initial comments this escalates into you now calling me a hate monger and racist. Keep in mind I made no racial statements here. This is clear. Only you did that Howlin.

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 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

And then your boyfriend, your fellow cliquester chimes in with this. Yeah, this is the same guy that made the offensive post to me the other day when I made a comment regarding conservatism and President Bush. They suspended me and he is allowed to continue. JR told me, "They must have missed that one Joe".

Below, a few threads later, I am now accused of being off topic, after initially being attacked with vile insinuations of racism by Howlin

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 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You folks are pathetic. And the above clearly shows this weak attempt and pattern of baiting people, and intentionally attempting to cause problems.

Yes, I did strike back with a few names. But *ONLY* after the vile, offenisve insinuations and accusations...

[jammer]

Do you think it is as we have suspected for at least a year or so (some of us even longer )? Perhaps he IS like his dad, a liberal in conservative clothing?

[TLBSHOW]

We conservatives were warned by Rush back in 1999 about this from the FR archieves.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: says BUSH "NO CONSERVATIVE"
Who wants a Republican moderate as president?" Limbaugh asked, a question the Bush camp must hope that other conservatives don't begin asking.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/647952/posts


Rush is 100% right and a very big promoter of Freerepublic besides and in fact he mentioned FR again yesterday on his show. To have these Bush/liberal promoters slamming Rush is disgusting.

[jammer]

Yes. I have criticized Rush before (and will again) because no one agrees with everyone else 100% of the time. Except people who are like those I wrote you privately about.

There are three types of poster on here that I can identify:
1. Of course, the terminally confused;
2. People who have defined principles and evaluate politicians against those principles. I like these people, even if I ardently disagree with their principles;
3. The type we have been responding to, who obviously shift their "principles" or redefine their "principles" in response to whatever demigod (or demagogue) has enunciated it. These people are dishonest and therefore detestable.

[Howlin]

3. The type we have been responding to, who obviously shift their "principles" or redefine their "principles" in response to whatever demigod (or demagogue) has enunciated it.

You mean like this?

Here

And then

and here