Bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case...

Associated Press

[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

[TLBSHOW]

To: Howlin; TLBSHOW

If you agree with the racist Jesse Jackson, what possible reason can you have for criticizing TLBSHOW for being a bigot?


62 posted on 01/10/2003 10:05 PM EST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: aristeides

Obviously, you don't read all his spam.


63 posted on 01/10/2003 10:07 PM EST by Howlin (Ignore Todd Spam)

[Howlin]

No, I need off this antihistamine.

[Howlin]

Loser.

[TLBSHOW]

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)

[Howlin]

Are you posting from a mental ward? Can we at least get an answer on that?

[TLBSHOW]

The only reason she agrees with Jesse Jackson is because Bush is sending Powell to speak at his shakedown of wall street and Ari slammed wnd for daring to even ask the question why. So Howlin of course turned around and said she agrees with Jesse Jackson! LOL

,,,,,,,

WND next asked Fleischer about two members of the Bush administration attending a Jesse Jackson event.

WND: Two members of the Bush administration – Michael Powell and Raul Compos – are scheduled on Jan. 16 to make appearances at Jesse Jackson's annual Wall Street fund-raiser, even though Mr. Jackson announced that Secretary of State Powell "is not on our side," and he also defended Harry Belafonte for calling Secretary Powell "a house slave." And my question, does the president believe that Niger Ennis of the Congress of Racial Equality is wrong in his statement that certain members of the Bush administration are being duped, that the good efforts of the Bush administration are being manipulated?

FLEISCHER: Lester, I think it's fair to say the president doesn't focus on the same things that you do. (Laughter.) So I have not heard the president's answers on those topics.

WND: Come on, Ari. That is a monstrous evasion! (Laughter.)

[Poohbah]

I walked back the posts you cited as proof of Howlin allegedly saying she supported Jesse Jackson.

There's one small problem with your thesis: there's no post from Howlin that actually SAYS that, only your "quotation" of that post.

You, sir, make Bill & Hillary Clinton look like exemplars of truth and integrity.

[Fred Mertz]

Now, she claims she's drugged up. She might want to join the libertines! LOL!

[Fred Mertz]

And you make a nightlight look like a lighthouse.

Thanks for your investigative efforts.

[dogbyte12]

Fred... before you leap off the cliff into the re-Todd sea of stupidity, just wanted to say that I could think of no better guy to follow the Re-Todd around.

Tell me if the ground is hard.

[Poohbah]

Freddie, nothing personal...but please go have an improper relationship with yourself.

[aristeides]

Why should I criticize him? I agree with him. [in response to a question I asked about why she did not criticize Jesse Jackson.]

That doesn't mean she supports (or at least agrees with) Jesse Jackson?

Given her present claim, about being drugged, and her following sentence, I suppose I can believe she thought I was asking about Jesse Lee Peterson -- but that was certainly not the obvious interpretation of her words at the time. So your accusation of TLBSHOW being a liar seems, shall we say?, a mite hasty.

[TLBSHOW]

Like I told you a few days back Howlin if you dare to trash me like you did to Trent that I would slam you but good!

You said you agreed with Jesse Jackson. Even if now your saying you didn't and meant Peterson and that you agree with him then you would agree with this that Peterson
said.....on that thread. That now you say you agree with. LOL

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rev. Peterson added, “This administration’s plan to send officials to meet with a discredited ‘civil-rights leader’ is shameful. In the past, Jackson has called President Bush an ‘illegitimate’ President, and has compared the Bush administration to terrorists. The administration is validating Jackson, and they’re sending the wrong message to the American people.

How can they [Bush administration] embrace Jackson

and yet repudiate Trent Lott? —

It doesn’t make sense and it’s wrong!”


EARTH to HOWLIN Peterson is on Trents side! So you are too.
We have finally got some where now.

[aristeides]

but please go have an improper relationship with yourself.

Since your using language like that does have certain implications about whether or not you are a gentleman, I must wonder about your claims of having been an officer.

[TLBSHOW]

Go back to tos as I am sure you never slammed the whiners there have you?

[Poohbah]

That doesn't mean she supports (or at least agrees with) Jesse Jackson?

You're quoting TLBSHOW's "quote." However, relative to the post TLBSHOW was referring back to...it looks as if it has been "strategically edited."

[Torie]

I can't imagine Howlin agreeing with much of anything that comes out of Jesse Jackson's mouth ever. Heck, even I have to work hard to find something about Jesse or what he says that is positive, and I am probably more suspect than Howlin about such matters. But speaking with Jesse, or in a forum with him, is another matter. That may or may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances. I suspect without reading this thread, that what we have is another useless and silly flame war, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

[cynicom]

Seen it all???? Not with that one you aint.

[Poohbah]

Since your using language like that does have certain implications about whether or not you are a gentleman, I must wonder about your claims of having been an officer.

Never said I was. I was an NCO. So I must wonder about your claims of having a brain.

[rintense]

There is a long history with U of M and this case. It actually goes back to the late 80s. I went to high school with a guy who was rejected at U of M. He had a 3.8 GPA, model student, etc. Upon furhter investigation, another person at our high school, a minority, was accepted at Michigan. Their GPA? 3.0. His parents sued and lost.

I can see Bush pushing the Affirmative Access program in all colleges that receive federal funding.