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...

[MJY1288]

"Nah, Rush wanted to cut the legs out from under the liberals who characterize the brief as extreme."

That might be true, but not too many liberals listen to Rush :-)

(The attention from the "weakest links" just naturally followed.)

ROFLMAO, Very good point

[MJY1288]

You would think by the reaction from Rush and others that this case was Students of the University of Mishigan - v - United States of America

My Goodness, Ted Olsen filed a freind of the court brief not an announcement that he was planning to argue the case and represent the 2 students

[MJY1288]

Yikes, Mishigan = Michigan

LOL, I'm not hooked on "Phonics"

[TLBSHOW]

1995. President Bill Clinton reviewed all affirmative action guidelines by federal agencies and declared his support for affirmative action programs by announcing the Administration's policy of "Mend it, don't end it."

[Ben Ficklin]

I saw it reported on ABC broadcast.

This Dallas News article from the 14th is the earliest

[MJY1288]

What the hell does this have anything to do with this situation? Clinton would have filed a brief in support of the university?

Oh I get it, Bush = Clinton

Wow, how analytical of you

[aruanan]

Who is argueing

arguing

[MJY1288]

Thanks, I missed that one :-)

[holdonnow]

The reason that is only applies to race (although the Supreme Court has expanded it in some cases involving gender and religion) is because it was passed after the Civil War, along with the 13th and 15th amendments. The ONLY reason this was passed was to deal with race. What did you think they were talking about? You can research this yourself if you'd like. There are notes from the ratifying debates in the various states. I can assure you they were talking about race and race only, not about anything else.

[Ben Ficklin]

Here is the same article where you don't have to register.

[holdonnow]

If this case deals exclusively with the facts in the admissions programs at Michigan and Michigan Law, it sets precedent for NOTHING. The problem with this brief is that it gives cover to Sandra Day O'Connor and perhaps Anthony Kennedy to cut the baby in half, as Bush did, i.e., it's illegal as to the facts in Michigan, but not otherwise. You don't build precedence this way, which is why every conservative legal group I'm aware of was stunned with the difference between what Bush said, and what his brief argued.

[holdonnow]

Oh yes, it's Rush's fault. Isn't that the response of those who cannot defend these spasmatic lurches to the middle or left? Let's face it ... Ted Olson wanted to address this in a principled way, and others did not. The others won out.

[holdonnow]

Oh yes, it's Rush's fault. And Ann Coulter's fault. And Laura Ingraham's fault. And Ted Olson's fault. You're off on this.

[MJY1288]

I'm not an attorney, But what is the argument in the brief filed by the lawyers for the two students? and can they win? and if so, will it set precedence?

[holdonnow]

This is the first time since 1978 that this issue has so squarely been presented to the court. It's not a question of being sweeping, but doing what's right here. Ask Ward Connerly how much blood he has spilled fighting this issue for two decades. It reminds me of the signing of the campaign finance law, which violated every prior principled statement the president had made on the subject. He signed it at 2 in the morning, and left town. He doesn't do this kind of thing often, but when he does, I see no reason to pretend otherwise and spin it away. That's what the libs do.

[MJY1288]

I don't blame Rush, I don't blame anyone, My goodness the case hasn't even been argued yet. He is just commenting on this case like the rest of us.

But I think these two students will win this case and it is a very good start at reversing Affirmative Action.

[Miss Marple]

Please cite for me where I mentioned Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, or said that any of this was Ted Olson's fault.

I would like you to tell me what conservative groups, besides Landmark Legal Foundation, were stunned by this brief.

[holdonnow]

There are two cases here, joined as one. Michigan gave extra points to minorities in their admissions program. Michigan law set a quota of minority admissions acceptance of between 10-17%. The white students contend the obvious: that the 14th amendment prohibits race discrimination by a state. That was its original purpose. You should keep in mind that this was understood right up until Richard Nixon created government imposed affirmative action requirements in schools and workplaces.

[Ben Ficklin]

The problem with those who don't think that Bush is conservative enough is that they think that Bush's position is of greater importance than what the court thinks.

[OldFriend]

LOLOL no doubt there are freepers who would be complaining about the president if he walked on water.

As for Rush, his babbling is enough to irk my last nerve.

Twice in recent weeks he has proven to be so far out of touch that I find his arrogance and ignorance unbearable.

He criticized anyone who would actually use their health insurance for a 'measly' $250 doctor's bill. Our health coverage for one person is over $300 per month. Damned right I am not going to be paying for something that is covered. But then we didn't earn $25million dollars last year either. A week ago he laughed about no one would have a passbook savings account collecting 5% interest. Rush, not in America do you get 5% interest on your savings account.......you'd be lucky to get 2%........