[holdonnow]

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.

[nicollo]

Re-read my post, especially the quotation from Brown. To your specific objections, I'll repeat:

1) Affirmative action, etc., is wrong and inconsistent with Brown.

2) Brown has been twisted around that statement from it I quoted.

2) Unravelling the liberal barber's pole of Brown will follow neither Bush's speech nor the Univ. of Michigan case. The Court don't work that way. And neither do national politics. Limbaugh and his "EIB legal team" misconstrued the amicus filing to mean what it doesn't say.

Affirmative action is not germane in this case. Univ. of Michigan enrollment policies are. Bakke killed quotas. Michigan will kill race-weighted enrollment preferences. It will not kill "diversity," which Brown upheld (in 1950s language). The President upheld Brown's statement for "diversity." That and affirmative action are very different.

The Administration is shrewd. And effective.