White House set to stay out of affirmative-action case

Washington Times ^ | 1/09/03 | Frank J. Murray

[kattracks]

President Bush is unlikely to join a Supreme Court battle over whether public universities may favor racial or ethnic groups for admissions.

Two sources close to the administration deliberations told The Washington Times that the White House has received a legal brief from the Justice Department backing white students who say they were denied admission to the University of Michigan because of "race-conscious measures."

[TLBSHOW]

Apparently, this principle is too politically controversial for GOP presidential front-runner George W. Bush to embrace publicly and unequivocally -- and too complicated for GOP law-enforcement officials in Bush's home state of Texas to defend.

Although Bush claims to oppose racial quotas and preferences, he refuses to take a position on two landmark ballot measures that outlawed racial preferences by popular vote: California's Prop. 209 and Washington state's Initiative 200. More disturbing was Bush's failure to take a position on Prop. A, the 1997 Houston Civil Rights Initiative, which would have outlawed racial preferences in contracting by Houston city government.

If Bush cannot bring himself to support ballot initiatives that abolish government preferences, then his stated opposition to preferences is thin gruel.

Michelle Malkin

[Texasforever]

It would be nice to see him take a stand and end Affirmative Action.

TLB Race based quotas have been struck down continuously in the last 5 to 10 years. Every major court case has ruled that college admissions based primarily on race are un-constitutional. The fact is that the previous rulings had the Justice department taking the side for AA and they were unsuccessful. Maybe the court is saying to the executive, to butt out.

[lawgirl]

Sure it would be nice from an emotional, heartfelt POV. God knows--I suffered from AA in law school in SEVERAL instances including a student CAUGHT cheating and not expelled because he was black.

Just like I'd LOVE for him to stand up and say "By God, I am going to make it my mission to overturn Roe v. Wade." But, that's not smart for many reasons. President Bush understands the value of working behind the scenes, as well as letting the judiciary work FOR him. WHICH is why it is SO IMPORTANT to get conservative judges in!!!!!!!! THAT is my #1 issue right now. Get good conservative judges in there and we won't even have to worry about it. He will be able to hand the ball over to them and know they'll take care of it.

[judgeandjury]

A coalition of 11 Hispanic groups yesterday dispatched a letter citing political reasons why Mr. Bush should support the use of race as an admissions factor to help equalize the percentage of Latinos pursuing college degrees.

Silly me. I always thought that the way to get ahead was to study hard and then you'd be rewarded for your efforts by being accepted by a good university. But that was before common sense was tossed out the window in regard to college admissions policies. Now, apparently all you need to be is an above average student with the right skin color, and you're in.

[TLBSHOW]

Will George W. work for
a color-blind America?

Michelle Malkin

Bush's silence sent me sifting through what little scraps of public record exist that might reassure me of his commitment to color-blind government. Yes, his handlers are wonderfully talented at getting the newspapers to run front-page photos of the compassionate Bush hugging inner-city children. Yet, when the Texas-based Campaign for a Color-blind America asked public officials in a survey whether "Congress should enact a law that would ban discrimination and preferences on the basis of race, color, sex, ethnicity and national origin in the operation of public employment and public contracting," Bush answered "No Opinion."

Bush also marked "No Opinion" when asked whether race-based affirmative action should be replaced with class- or need-based affirmative action or a system based on merit only. (Click here to view the complete questionnaire and Bush's responses.)

Bush's own official web site offers no concrete examples of courage or principle on the issue of race. It does give a detailed bean-counting tally of which minority groups supported Bush's gubernatorial campaign in 1994; the site also brags about Bush's role in securing tax dollars for the Texas Rangers baseball stadium.

What's not mentioned was the governor's patently offensive, race-based sales pitch. As reported in the June 1999 issue of Texas Monthly, the awarding of minority-earmarked government contracts was instrumental to the stadium measure's passage. Black and Latino leaders attacked the deal – until Bush assuaged them with the promise of government giveaway goodies. Bush "spoke from the pulpit of the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Arlington," Texas Monthly reported, where he declared, "A vote for the tax would be a vote for contracts for African American businesses."

Egad. If this is the voice of compassionate conservatism, Democrats have nothing to fear.

Bush's legislative record is depressing. This year he signed laws supporting minority contracting set-asides; directing electric utilities to develop diversit y and set-aside plans; and creating race-tar geted, scholarship-matching programs run by the state higher education coordinating board.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin.html

[lawgirl]

I don't see how a quote by "michelle malkin" is relevant. if she wants to debate, she can come over here. ;)

[lawgirl]

Bush's own official web site offers no concrete examples of courage or principle on the issue of race

His web site might not, but his Cabinet does. ;-D

[TLBSHOW]

Topic: George W. Bush
Where does George W. Bush stand on affirmative action?

Campaign For a Colorblind America

The Campaign For a Colorblind America (www.equalrights.com) asked George W. Bush to answer the following questions:

In his answer, to each of these questions, Gov. George W. Bush checked "No Opinion."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36e138b1462f.htm

[TLBSHOW]

Ok so we know he had no opinion then. The question now is, does he have an opinion?

I have one. End Affirmative Action Mr. President.

[lawgirl]

LOL you sure are stubborn. SO, within the limits of the separation of powers doctrine, how do you suggest he do that? Do you really want him messing around with the judiciary? That sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. (Imagine if Clinton had gotten involved with the Supreme Court. We would all have had a fit, and rightfully so.)

[TLBSHOW]

He should sign an executive order ending affirmative action. And one ending Abortion.

I did find this as to what a demorat might do like Gore! This is from the The American Conservative Union. October 9, 2000 called Casting a Vote for Renaissance or Decline in the U.S. Supreme Court.

,,,,

A Gore Supreme Court would make Roe v. Wade safe forever and include partial birth abortion immunity. Gun control in the extreme would be a fact of life, and separation of church and state would be stretched to the maximum. Affirmative action would be mandatory and violations criminal. The Commerce Clause would be overrun by hoards of tax poachers already eyeing the Internet as a source for more government. School vouchers¾forget it. Gore has endorsed all of these ideas. The result? A wobbly economy, a Godless totalitarian state and federalism rolling in its grave. You could only pray for mercy in your closet with the door shut.

[Charlotte Corday]

The only thing option 1 guarantees is a racist label from the press/ democrats.

So does option 2.

And options 3,4,5,6,7,8,.........n.

In for a penny, in for a pound is my view.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"The whole point of separation of powers is that the judiciary is to be SEPARATE from the executive (and legislative) branch. The justices have to be above reproach,..."

I'm having a hard time understanding this. For one thing, this is a statement that assumes all Supreme Court justices are inherently corrupt and unable to act independently. This feeds right into the frenzy that the SC "gave" the election to Bush.

And, based on this interpretation of separation of powers, McConnell and friends (members of the legislative branch) should not go before the Supreme Court and argue against the campaign finance reform bill.

I don't think separation of powers means one branch of the government is prohibited from presenting its opinion to another branch.

IMHO, if Bush and his administration decide to stay out of this case, it will be for political reasons and not a constitutional mandate.

[TLBSHOW]

Go for it all and slam the rats but good!

[drjimmy]

Do you really want him messing around with the judiciary? That sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
When you get to be Solicitor General, or even President, you can decide not to "mess around" with the judiciary. Until then, one of the very jobs of the Solicitor General is to decide whether and when to intervene by filing a brief with the Supreme Court stating the executive branch's position on a case. You can certainly argue about whether intervening in the affirmative action case is politically wise, but you might want to check out the Solicitor General's website before continuing to blather about "separation of powers."

[MrB]

a 20-point bonus for American Indian, black and Hispanic undergraduate applicants

This means nothing if you don't know what the rest of the point system is. I wonder why the author left this information out...

This is how I heard it:
Excellent Essay: 1 pt
Perfect SAT score: 12 pts
Being a Minority: 20 pts

Being a Minority is worth almost twice as much as a Perfect SAT Score!

[TLBSHOW]

bttt

[WOSG]

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

I think the Justice Dept., should elucidate the right position - which is that quotas are indefensible and racial preferences are wrong.

If the Justice Dept. has arguments about AA that it should not include quotas, etc., they merely need to leak it and let some others present it to the USSC. It should not sway the court who presents the legal arguments, just the logic underlying them should be determinative.

The Croson decision and the Hopwood lower court decision already clear the way for better clarity from the court.
IOW, AA is in big heap trouble anyway and one Justice dept brief will hardly change the USSC decision much. So while I agree that the right thing is to submit a brief, the politically expedient path of stepping aside will not harm the cause or the case at all.

[WOSG]

I SO AGREE WITH YOU!!

Get the RIGHT (Rightwing :-) ) Judges in there and the decisions will take care of themselves. Gettig the right Judges appointed is #1 priority.

We only have AA bacause of Liberal Pretzel logic invading the legal system.

And I am happy that we have some conservative women lawyers out there. freep on!

[WOSG]

He should sign an executive order ending affirmative action.

This is true. The Clinton admin jumped through hoops to get around the USSC Adarand (sp?) decision that forbade explicit quotas in contracting. In truth, set-aside programs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL --- and yet, amazingly, we still have them across the country. For example, I heard that San Fransisco went through extraordinary legal actions to get around the California state consitutional ban on preferences. All Bush has to do is stop subverting these kinds of decisions, with an executive order ... yet I dont know the status of this. Another idea: Propose a constitutional amendment just as Wade Connerly did in California.