Posted on 01/08/2003 10:07:11 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
You seem to assume that Bush will nominate SCOTUS judges who oppose racial preferences. I believe that assumption is likely to be invalid.
Why? Do you think other controversial issues, like abortion, should also be decided by the judicial branch? If so, why have elected officials at all? While I would be delighted if the Supreme Court decides to roll back racial preferences, it is outrageous that the Bush administration and Congress -- our elected representatives -- would consider punting on this important issue.
Right in Virginia--what's hard to understand about my statement? The Justices in this country have to be separate from all influence, one of the reasons SOP was set up in the first place. They need to look ONLY at the constitution.
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.
Yes I agree with that. I don't feel comfortable with anyone lobbying the supreme court, and especially the legislature. In this instance, the judicial system will be arguing the case for the government, (and I still say the president shouldn't get involved on a direct level) but the legislature really needs to butt out.
Clinton is scum---it's for the judicial to decide in this case as it has been brought through the court system in a case. Someone filed a case, which makes the issue at that point the providence of the judiciary. ANd I think that in highly controversial issues YES the judiciary should settle them. The judiciary is to be non-partisan and only look at the law. That is indeed who I want to be deciding a controversial law--people that are outside a circle of influence and looking only at our laws--not people that are always eyeing their reelection status.
WOSG--I am glad you agree with me. Conservative judges will eliminate a lot of this concern.
That is the most idiotic thing I have read here in a while, and you probably realize what a statement that is...
One, Bush Just laid it out on the Table BIG TIME, Between Tax reform, and Renomination of Judges INCLUDING PICKERING.
Two, RE-ELECTION Means EVERYTHING. That's why they Have Elections. And Call it Politics. If you do not win re-election, you Do NOT IMPLEMENT POLICY.
Consider.....The Largest Bastion of American SOCIALISM is Socialist Security. Why Do you think The taxation on Dividends is such a prominent part of the Tax Plan ? Educating ALL of America as to How the Market works, is Key, to eviscerating the opposition to Privatization. SS was once the Third Rail of American Politics, and GOVERNOR Bush took it head on.That is not Cowardice, that is Conviction.
However, The President and Karl Rove have proved over and over and over again that they Understand the POLITICS of getting things Done.
Bush is No Coward. You are too Dull Witted to understand the Big picture.
George W. Bush must decide between setting off an electrifying jolt of principle by opposing affirmative action, or yielding to heavy political pressure
I have just pointed out, that there are more than two choices, and invariably they have, up to this point ferreted out the right option.....
Staying out of this case happens to be the conservative thing to do since it has been the black activist organizations and the college that have repeatedly requested that the administration step in.
I equate "influence" with corruption...the kind of corruption that stems from some other party having control over whether or not a justice remains on the bench.
The Founders eliminated your definition of "influence" by making the Judiciary a co-equal branch of government AND deeming a Supreme Court Justice to be a justice for life. I don't agree with your premise that "influence" can be defined as merely presenting an argument before the Supreme Court.
Neither the president nor a legislator has any power to remove a judge (for other than those reasons the Founders were wise enough to itemize~~and even that demands a trial.)
Which brings me back to my point about this pending affirmative action suit. ~ If the administration chooses to stay neutral and not present a brief to the Supreme Court--it will be doing so for political reasons and not because the beautifully crafted separation of powers in the Constitution demands it.
(Wow, I think this is my longest post to date ;^) )
On NOW at RadioFR!
Join AnnaZ, Mercuria and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson for a…
A DAY AT THE RACISTS!
The Lott Thing!
The Byrd Thing!
The Je$$e Jack$on Thing!
The Sharpton Thing!
The Profiling Thing!
The Reparations Thing!
The Thought Police Thing!
Nope, the conservative thing to do is to file an amicus brief decrying racism in all of it's forms.
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.