Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case...
Associated Press

Posted on 01/10/2003 6:25:04 PM PST by RCW2001

By Ron Fournier
AP White House Correspondent
Friday, January 10, 2003; 8:56 PM

WASHINGTON –– Bush administration lawyers are laying the groundwork to oppose a University of Michigan program that gives preference to minority students, a step that would inject President Bush into the biggest affirmative action case in a generation.

Bush himself has not decided what role, if any, the administration will play in the landmark case but several officials said Friday night he is unlikely to stay on the sidelines. White House political allies are planning to intervene against the Michigan program nonetheless.

The administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, pointed to Bush's record in Texas and their continuing review of Clinton administration affirmative action cases as signs that the president is inclined to oppose the university's policies. Furthermore, he is likely to suggest alternatives to racial preferences that still promote diversity, officials said.

Bush is awaiting formal recommendations from Justice Department and White House lawyers before making his decision.

The Supreme Court, in its most important case this year, is expected to rule on the constitutionality of programs that gave black and Hispanic students an edge when applying to the University of Michigan and its law school.

The issue is a lightning rod both for conservative voters who back Bush and for minority voters, whom Republicans are courting.

Further complicating the White House's decision is the fallout for the GOP from the racially provocative comments that cost Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., his job as Senate majority leader. Bush denounced Lott's remarks, which were widely interpreted as nostalgia for segregation.

Siding with white students so soon after the Lott controversy could be seen as an affront to blacks.

The administration is not a party to the Michigan fight and does not have to take a position. Traditionally, however, the White House weighs in on potentially landmark cases.

Bush must decide soon. Legal briefs opposing affirmative action are due to the court Jan. 16, and briefs supporting the Michigan admissions plans are due in February.

Lawyers for political allies of the White House are drafting friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that the University of Michigan policy is unconstitutional, administration officials said.

The Justice Department is awaiting word from Bush on whether to file a brief of its own. At the least, Bush is expected to take a public stand on the matter and explain his position that racial quotas are not needed to foster diversity, officials said.

In Texas, Bush opposed racial preferences in public universities and proposed instead that students graduating in the top 10 percent of all high schools be eligible for admission. Supporters say the policy increased diversity because many schools are largely minority.

Among the cases that would bolster their argument against the University of Michigan, officials said, is a 1997 affirmative action suit that supported a white high school teacher's claim that she suffered reverse discrimination when laid off from her job. A black teacher was retained.

The Clinton administration argued that the school district's affirmative action policy went too far and could not be justified merely by the notion that a diverse teacher corps is a worthy goal.

"A simple desire to promote diversity for its own sake ... is not a permissible basis for taking race into account," the government said then.

The brief was largely written by Walter Dellinger, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel and later the Clinton administration's acting solicitor general. Administration lawyers consider at least one other Dellinger brief, a case involving a Wisconsin teacher, as further basis to argue against the University of Michigan policy.

Contacted Friday, Dellinger said the reasoning assumed that there is some role for affirmative action but noted that the tool can be wrongly used.

"The general position taken was that while the use of race is sometimes permissible in educational settings, it must be narrowly tailored and shown to advance important educational goals," he said.

In a 1995 memo analyzing the effects of a Supreme Court case over affirmative action in government contracting, the Clinton administration's Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel noted that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected racial balancing as a goal of affirmative action.

"To the extent that affirmative action is used to foster racial and ethnic diversity, the government must seek some further objective beyond the achievement of diversity itself," said the memo, largely written by Dellinger.

© 2003 The Associated Press


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 421-429 next last
To: ohioWfan; TLBSHOW; Fred Mertz; Howlin
I think Todd reposted Fred's words to show other people agreed that he had not been lying about Howlin's words. The quote may have gone on to include Fred's words towards you, but I do not believe that is what Todd was thinking about.

I'm sure all of us fail sometimes to give a courtesy ping to people tangentially involved in what we post. (I've even been asked by at least one FReeper not to ping him.)

141 posted on 01/10/2003 9:29:12 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill; Askel5
Thanks for dem big links, Uncle Bill.
142 posted on 01/10/2003 9:30:03 PM PST by Fred Mertz (These wimmin..........Sheesh!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I POSTED THAT AND I LEFT YOUR NAME OFF DIDN'T I?

Fact is you idol worshippers want nothing more than to have a one way talk here but it won't happen. If it does than as Fred said its the RU and not a conservative news forum. I believe its a little of both and we can all get over the BS and work to solve problems not fight with each other over serious ones. But work and solve them. My history here is one of support for the President but if he does not take stands it leaves it up to all of us to think this way or that way and end in fights. Either he stands for someyhing as important as this AA is or he does not. Since this is what this thread is about isn't it?
143 posted on 01/10/2003 9:32:57 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW


144 posted on 01/10/2003 9:33:54 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Either he [Bush] stands for someyhing [sic] as important as this AA is or he does not. Since this is what this thread is about isn't it?

That's exactly what this thread is about. I hope Bush does the right thing.

145 posted on 01/10/2003 9:36:51 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Latino Groups Urge Bush To Back Affirmative Action - January 9, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html

Q Ari, will the administration be filing a brief in the Supreme Court affirmative action case?

MR. FLEISCHER: That is under review. This is something that the Department of Justice and the White House are reviewing as we speak and no decisions have been made.

Q There's only a week left, so presumably they have to be writing this now. Can you give us a little more on where you are in the process?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the deadline is a week from today. And that's a lot of time.

Q Why wouldn't you?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not indicating whether the administration will or won't, or if we do, what it might say.

Q But the signal landmark case on affirmative action in 25 years, and the U.S. government isn't going to take a position?

MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say we would or we wouldn't. I'm just saying it's a matter that's under review, precisely because it is a landmark case and a case that's important and a case that the President, who is very sensitive to issues involving diversity and opportunity for all, wants to make sure that it's approached in a thorough and careful, deliberative manner. And so there is one week remaining on the court given deadline for when an amicus brief would have to be filed. And so it remains an issue under review.

146 posted on 01/10/2003 9:38:15 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Howlin; All
I think Todd reposted Fred's words to show other people agreed that he had not been lying about Howlin's words.

And anyone that knows Howlin, knows she would never support Jesse Jackson .. She made a mistake and said so but yet that doesn't seem to be enough for Todd ..

147 posted on 01/10/2003 9:38:33 PM PST by Mo1 (Join the DC Chapter at the Patriots Rally III on 1/18/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
And if I recall she asked you to stop pinging her and to stop posting to her several times

yes she did and she was the first to break that rule by posting to me if you want the facts. And I warned her that if I am attacked I will attack back, they don't hate me with a passion at rat sites and say I should wear a bullet proof jacket for no reason. I am a Liberal basher and they know it! I eat William Pitt for breakfast and spit him in out don't expect me to turn wimpy here when I am attacked.

Anyways MO1 nothing personal but you need to get the facts before taking sides.
148 posted on 01/10/2003 9:38:45 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; TLBSHOW; Fred Mertz
Sorry, but in post #109, TLB posted Fred's insult to me with only a bttt added........that is, he apparently wanted to bump an irrelevant, and rather bizarre insult that Fred leveled at me to the top...... for no apparent reason. It had nothing to do with anyone's lying about anything. I find that quite strange.

At any rate, there is nothing being accomplished here on this thread, and I don't wish to hang around to be (irrationally) insulted further.

Thanks for trying to help, though. (I mean that....there is no sarcasm intended.)

Courtesy ping to TLB and Fred.

149 posted on 01/10/2003 9:40:04 PM PST by ohioWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
What a sorry way to lead one's life.

Yes, well, I have my suspicions regarding what conditions (physical and emotional) might be behind this sort of behavior - but in any case, it most certainly is a sorry way to lead one's life. People who hide behind computer screens and say things to others they would never in a million years have the guts to say to a person's face do not impress me.

150 posted on 01/10/2003 9:41:19 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Eleven. Exactly. One louder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Howlin; TLBSHOW
I think you're being a bit loose in your use of tenses. Until Howlin cleared up the matter on this thread, many of us -- including me, to whom her words were addressed -- naturally interpreted those words to mean she agreed with Jesse Jackson. TLBSHOW's reaction to her words was a very natural one.
151 posted on 01/10/2003 9:42:15 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Anyways MO1 nothing personal but you need to get the facts before taking sides.

First .. I have been trying to stay fair .. and if I was to take sides .. You would know it

I have been watching what has been going on for some time .. just like I watched what happen over at the other site .. and as I suggested before .. drop it

152 posted on 01/10/2003 9:43:18 PM PST by Mo1 (A PROUD BUSH BOT !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
At any rate, there is nothing being accomplished here on this thread, and I don't wish to hang around to be (irrationally) insulted further.

That's what I was trying to tell you earlier. Why are you being so obtuse?

153 posted on 01/10/2003 9:44:53 PM PST by Fred Mertz (DoIJV is obtuse too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Why not stay and help solve and end this issue its about AA.
And ending the battle between us all, check my tags and check just when I took off the Howlin dig. Look at her tag and when she took off the slam at me.
154 posted on 01/10/2003 9:45:43 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Artois
I would blame neo-con pundits even more than Republican senators (or, for that matter, Democratic Senators). The neo-cons turned the molehill into the mountain and the politicians, including Bush, merely jumped on the bandwagon...bump - too bad the politicians had go through the kabuki dance with trumped-up implications of "racism" which tarnished the entire party, when, if they really wanted to be rid of Lott, they could have worked to vote for somebody else for ML in the elections three months ago......
155 posted on 01/10/2003 9:45:44 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I am not an idol worshipper, and you are out of line to start your post that way. I respect and admire the President for his integrity and his honesty, and I make no apologies for that. I do not agree with him on everything, and he is not as conservative in some areas as I would prefer, but I trust that he will do what HE thinks is best for this country, and am not egotistical enough to think he is wrong because he doesn't dot every i the way I want him to.

I believe that he will do the right thing with regard to this decision. He is opposed to AA, and has said so recently. The point of this thread is a discussion of this issue, and that's what I came on it to say.

Good night, Todd.

156 posted on 01/10/2003 9:46:18 PM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH - Leadership, Morality, Integrity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
What an odd little man you are, freddy.
157 posted on 01/10/2003 9:47:54 PM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH - Leadership, Morality, Integrity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Until Howlin cleared up the matter on this thread, many of us

If by "many of us" you mean TLB, Mertz and you then you have a skewed sense of proportion when it comes to the term "many". Yes I searched the entire thread and it was only you 3.

158 posted on 01/10/2003 9:49:46 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Here is the exact exchange. You can CLEARLY see that I used two different names.

To: Howlin; TLBSHOW

I see that once again you have failed to criticize Jesse Jackson. I wonder why.

59 posted on 01/10/2003 9:51 PM EST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


To: aristeides

Why should I criticize him? I agree with him.

It's lying that I don't agree with. Patterson is NOT the liar on this thread.

60 posted on 01/10/2003 9:52 PM EST by Howlin (Ignore Todd Spam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

159 posted on 01/10/2003 9:50:07 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; Howlin
Are you saying there was another reasonable interpretation of Howlin's words (before she came out with her explanation)?
160 posted on 01/10/2003 9:51:06 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 421-429 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