Whenever I have a discussion with you, you become defensive. I didn't say you mentioned those people. You did your usual diversion -- attacking Rush rather than addressing the substance. You simply will not accept any honest criticism of the president, even by those who adore him.
I mentioned only some in the legal conservative community who have spoken out today about this brief -- Coulter, Ingraham, and many others. You asked for others: Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Center; Linda Chavez and Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity; Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation; I could name many more, but you can do your own lexis/nexis and google research.
I'm not "stunned" by what this brief said. In fact, I'm disappointed. Race-based discrimination is deplorable. What happened to all those folks who demanded Trent Lott's head for his statements, but who either defend this race-based discrimination, or disparage those who question it?
Pardon me, but the way that you phrased your question led me to believe that you thought I had mentioned Ann Coulter and/or Laura Ingraham.
We are discussing the brief and whether or not Rush was characterizing it correctly. We are not discussing your interpretation of my motivations, of which you have NO idea. I do not discuss YOUR motivations, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
I want to know why Rush, who is supposed to be LOGICAL, cannot discuss a legal interpretation without ranting. I am quite able to do so, and I don't see why he cannot.
I do not pretend to be an attorney or any sort of a legal expert. I do understand the nuances of Supreme Court decorum, having paid attention over the last few years.
Are you telling me that Ted Olsen, Solicitor General, was overruled by underlings? Or are you inferring that President Bush, who is not an attorney, overruled Ted Olsen on constitutional law? I do not understand your comment, and would appreciate an explanation.