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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-344 next last
To: Ben Ficklin
jammer did hide a well, but here it is

Take the current case and argue against it, but not against the entire unconstitutionality of affirmative action?
21 posted on 01/17/2003 4:51:41 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
jammer did hide it well

He said The President

Take the current case and argue against it, but not against the entire unconstitutionality of affirmative action

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.

22 posted on 01/17/2003 4:54:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
There is only one case before the court. Bush has filed a brief on that one case.

This is not the first case of this nature before SCOTUS.

23 posted on 01/17/2003 4:56:37 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
White students brought suit against the university; therefore the two sides in the case that Bush could side with are the white students who sued or the university. So Bush did indeed side with the white students who brought suit.
24 posted on 01/17/2003 4:58:03 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
That's the same tactic the RATS use.... Go-figure


there is a rat in this story and its a democrat rat
it was a rat that started it as they tried to destroy America over the last 40 yeas, it was President democrat Johnson.
25 posted on 01/17/2003 5:00:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
TLBSHOW, You must win the case first in order to set precidence, and build from there. This case is the start, not the whole ball of wax. This is my main gripe with you "I gotta have it all right now or I vote for a hopeless .02%r" crowd. This country has to be taken back the same way it has taken away. One step at a time. BUT NO, You knee jerk reactionaries want to blow this perfect opportunity by trying to win it all back in one case.

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

26 posted on 01/17/2003 5:02:05 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Let's just get it up on the table, we are involved in CLASS WAREFARE in the US.

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!

27 posted on 01/17/2003 5:10:20 PM PST by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
"This is not the first case of this nature before SCOTUS"

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

28 posted on 01/17/2003 5:10:45 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer
Sorry about the spelling. WARFARE
29 posted on 01/17/2003 5:11:21 PM PST by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
It is against the constituion when it was started. President can end it.
It is not even a matter of more court dates.

We can end it period.
30 posted on 01/17/2003 5:15:51 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
How can "we" end it? How can the President end it? Do you think he is KING?

Rush counts on people like you, who react with emotion, rather than reason.

I look forward to your REASONED explanation.

31 posted on 01/17/2003 5:19:35 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
LOL, I give up, You will never get it, See ya
32 posted on 01/17/2003 5:20:37 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


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.

33 posted on 01/17/2003 5:20:47 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Ship, facilities, food, entertainment, ports, ocean, water, shopping, exploring, relaxing, loving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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.

34 posted on 01/17/2003 5:23:03 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"It is against the constituion when it was started. President can end it. It is not even a matter of more court dates.

We can end it period.

With that kind of logic, outlawing Partial Birth Abortion would reverse Roe v Wade.

Todd you are clueless

35 posted on 01/17/2003 5:23:32 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
In other words, it's ok to use affirmative action, you just have to be more sneaky about how you do it?
36 posted on 01/17/2003 5:25:22 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
"I don't know where you or Rush get your news, but this was widely reported on the 15th"


Reference, please?
37 posted on 01/17/2003 5:31:25 PM PST by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
" Rush Limbaugh and his so-called legal advisors just want attention from the weakest links"

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.)

38 posted on 01/17/2003 5:31:42 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
1985
Efforts by some in the Reagan administration to repeal

Executive Order 11246

were thwarted by defenders of affirmative action,

including other Reagan administration officials and members of Congress from both parties.

http://www.fairchance.org/about/history.htm
39 posted on 01/17/2003 5:31:53 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I see. And that ended it exactly how, Todd?
40 posted on 01/17/2003 5:34:32 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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