Rush Limbaugh says the affirmative action brief still keeps promoting race preference and its bad

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 1/17/2003 | Rush Limbaugh Showi

[TLBSHOW]

I WOULD guess A CERTAIN SOMEONE missed the Rush show today, didn't THEY?

[fightinJAG]

You know, I didn't think Rush's analysis of the organizing resolution in the Senate was too adept either.

He painted it a lot more woe-is-me than it appeared to be.

[habs4ever]

Not so.

[krodriguesdc]

I like G2 as much as anyone - but I am wondering just who has been advising him lately - especially since the Repubs wonn both houses...

they seem to be worrying too much about 2004...

[Stingray51]

On all the evidnece, there is no such thing as a good or bad school, only good or bad students. You could create a lousy all-white school, say one that performed worse than black average, by carefully selected the students for low IQ, but I have never heard of one. Have you?

I have never heard of such a scenario. As for your point about good and bad schools, I think it is probably true, as you say, "on all the evidence". Certainly, we know that spending does not correlate to performance. Logically, however, I think it must be true that some schools do a better or worse job adjusted for the nature of the students they have to work with.

[fightinJAG]

All your scenarios have some merit. However, let's get real: for most kids, particularly at the undergraduate level, getting into college is not a problem. They can get into college, somewhere.

A kid who is sets going to college as a goal can get there admissions-wise. Now tuition, travel money, etc., that's another story.

[Mo1]

Rush Limbaugh says the affirmative action brief is not what the speech said.

Anyone have a copy of this brief???

[hchutch]

Perhaps, but in this case, at least one conservative (Michelle Malkin) has mischaracterized the programs in Florida and Texas. Which leads me to question if the criticism of Bush is accurate or not.

There are constitutional lawyers here who can probably explain the workings of briefs as well. Congressman Billybob is one. Plus, fightinJAG has also explained things as well.

[fightinJAG]

Correct. Especially in a case in which the law goes against the druthers of some of the justices, the Supreme Court twists itself into pretzels in its attempts to decide a case in the narrowest possible way.

That is what caselaw---precedent---is for. The usual way to change the law in a big way is to win a bunch of small changes and build and build and build on each previous case.

No, Rush, you cannot always "put a nail in it" the first time out.

[rintense]

Well I can't seem to find a place to listen to Rush on the net anymore, so I have no idea what was said today. But, based on his over reactions from the past, I have to wonder if he had all the facts in his hands.

[rdf]

Grutter v. Bollinger

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/grutter/grutterum11603brf.pdf

+++

Gratz v. Bollinger

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/gratz/gratzum11603brf.pdf

[justshe]

Although addressed to "ALL"...you reference a "A CERTAIN SOMEONE missed the Rush show today, didn't THEY".

To whom are you addressing your comment?

Why be oblique when you are obviously being specific?

Just curious...

[k2blader]

Just heard Rush... (on tape-delay)... If true, very disappointing.

[justshe]

~~~A kid who is sets going to college as a goal can get there admissions-wise.~~~

Agreed....even if they have to enroll in a community college initially, live at home, and THEN transfer to a 4 yr. school.

[BibChr]

He is not happy and spent the first hafe hour on it and first call had to do with this subject

r u series?

Dan

[fightinJAG]

"having diversity as a goal":

1. big fat deal--this doesn't say ANYTHING about how that goal should be accomplished;

2. co-opting the fuzzy-bunny-speak of the Left and using it against them is both wise and hilarious.

Lighten up, Rush, please.

[TLBSHOW]

What was it that you found to be disappointing? Since you heard it?

[fightinJAG]

sarcasm button ON, right? :-)

[justshe]

I found it interesting that some earlier poster was characterizing Rush's comments as being ALL about the problem (as he perceives it) with NO suggestions as to how it SHOULD be corrected.

Isn't that exactly what "we"(generic) have accused the Dems as doing? They are always ranting about some problem, without offering constructive, do-able solutions. They simply use an issue as a whip to beat the opposition.

[k2blader]

Thanks for the links!