Don't let your chance to join us, on the FRN Freeps Ahoy Caribbean cruise, fade way.
For a limited time only, win a free cabin on the seven night six day cruise.
Click on the graphic for more details. Enter to win silly rabbit.
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...
This is not the first case of this nature before SCOTUS.
If these two students win the case, How many more cases simular to theirs do you think will be filed tomorrow?
Think with vision Todd, This is chess not checkers
There is no way the left can be placated, nor Jesse, Al, as it is always a full court press with whites objecting being bigots.
Any objection to their demands is bigotry and hatecrimes. DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD!
My point exactly, If this case is won, Next week there will be someone who was denied a job in a simular fashion use this case as precidence and it will forever live as "CASE LAW" until the SCOTUS reverses it. If we could only get these doom and gloom reversed binoculars off these critters we might see a change for the good
Rush counts on people like you, who react with emotion, rather than reason.
I look forward to your REASONED explanation.
Why do we feel compelled to change everything in one sweeping move?
I don't often compliment DemocRAT strategy, but I do admire their sheer patience...and commitment to alter society and law in incremental steps. And, if you look objectively at what they've been able to change over the past 30 years, you'd have to admit their strategy has worked.
It's MHO that we'd do well to incorporate a bit of this strategy into our own. We will win more friends, garner more support and achieve far more if we used "incremental change" when appropriate. ~ And, it's appropriate now.
Kudos to President Bush for his principles and political skills.
We can end it period.
With that kind of logic, outlawing Partial Birth Abortion would reverse Roe v Wade.
Todd you are clueless
Nah, Rush wanted to cut the legs out from under the liberals who characterize the brief as extreme.
(The attention from the "weakest links" just naturally followed.)
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.