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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-344 next last
To: nicollo
Ok, can't go yet with commenting on this one: so I think you think affirmative actions is the illegitimate product of Brown v. Board of Education (which I can't tell whether you support or not). Then you say Rush is wrong because this takes time to unravel. Of course, it will take a very, very long time to unravel if a conservative president doesn't file a brief challenging the institutionalization of reverse discrimination. But with all due respec, I find this posting to be incoherent.
81 posted on 01/17/2003 6:49:40 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Oh boy ... hopeless.
82 posted on 01/17/2003 6:51:23 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"Rush broke this story at 12 noon today."

Damn Todd, If Rush keeps breaking all these stories, he might be able to compete with Drudge.

" It took me an hour to decide if i should post this."

What were you afraid of?

83 posted on 01/17/2003 6:52:08 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Oh boy ... hopeless.

Thank you for your detailed reply.

84 posted on 01/17/2003 6:54:38 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Now that you're back, Would you mind responding to #67
85 posted on 01/17/2003 6:55:28 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Gosh, i do wonder where Rush got his talking points today...
86 posted on 01/17/2003 6:56:09 PM PST by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
just want attention from the weakest links who jump at every change to wollow in their own misery

Anybody WE know?

87 posted on 01/17/2003 6:56:21 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alnick
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.

How DARE you bring truth into this thread; you'll ruin his rant!

88 posted on 01/17/2003 6:58:24 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Anybody WE know?"

LOL, I'm trying to be good, you're not helping :-)

89 posted on 01/17/2003 7:00:01 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
President can end it.

How? Exactly HOW can Bush end this case? Since you act like you know so much, HOW?

Now that is a direct question. I don't want ANY cut and paste.....I want YOU to tell US how George W. Bush has the power to END THIS CASE.

Time to put up or shut up, Todd. You made the statement; you back it up.

90 posted on 01/17/2003 7:01:03 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gcochran; elephant; caisson71; JohnGalt; Texas_Jarhead; JohnHuang2; bvw; hchutch; ...
ping
91 posted on 01/17/2003 7:01:35 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW

Worst duplicate thread created by same poster ever!

92 posted on 01/17/2003 7:02:46 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
ROFLMAO, Did you notice my first reply?
93 posted on 01/17/2003 7:03:55 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Nothing like beating a dead horse, especially one that was never alive to begin with :-)
94 posted on 01/17/2003 7:04:38 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Exactly. And ask yourself why. I'm thinking it's because they NEED something to trash Bush with. The very people who say that WE are all in lockstep for Bush are demanding that Bush be in lockstep with them.

95 posted on 01/17/2003 7:07:24 PM PST by Howlin (It's yet ANOTHER good day to be a Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
So I did pretty good telling about this story earlier today, thanks.

I am sure Rush will have more to say as he was stunned.
96 posted on 01/17/2003 7:07:48 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Todd. It is Friday night. Take the wife out on a date or something if spamming everybody with 2 threads isn't more important or something. Jimminy Crickets. What is wrong with you man?
97 posted on 01/17/2003 7:08:49 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Don't mend it, don't fix it, end it.


98 posted on 01/17/2003 7:10:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
We have people over now. That is why my post are scattered.
99 posted on 01/17/2003 7:12:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Another "room temperature IQ" response to a simple question
100 posted on 01/17/2003 7:13:28 PM PST by MJY1288 (SCOTUS decides, Not GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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