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

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

[LibertarianInExile]

Yours is the best post here so far because it directly addresses the current Court priorities. It has been more and more obvious that the Court doesn't look to constitutionality first in its rulings, but instead party interests, and O'Connor will likely do the same here when she rules in favor of the students but against the end of affirmative action altogether.

Let's hope Rehnquist, O'Connor, et. al. will quietly join Scalia and Thomas in the majority, instead of concurring separately like a bunch of party hacks with ink to burn, to decide finally whom the U.S. stands with for the foreseeable future:

The honored signers of Declaration of Independence -
"All men are created equal"

or

Gangsta rappers Onyx -
"Two wrongs don't make it right but it damn sure make us even."

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" But, based on his over reactions from the past, I have to wonder if he had all the facts in his hands."

Rush never misses a chance to bash Bush-never.Rush stopped the Bush brief blitz and bash after the first half hour-just dropped it like a lead balloon.He continued to talk about quotas and racial perferences,but not the actual text of the brief. I wonder why. Rush tried to imply that Bush had snookered conservatives with Ted Olson's brief, which was a real cheap shot,but so typical of Rush,when it comes to anything Bush does. Here's a quote from way down at the bottom of the NYT article- " while his lawyers got to make the more nuanced arguments that have the only real chance of succeeding at the court." The part of the piece that sees the Justice Dept side, says that you can't come into the SCOTUS with an "in your face" attitude and both guns blazing-like Rush,the self appointed Solicitor General, apparently wanted. Here's more on the strategy- " The balance on this issue is almost certainly held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who perhaps among all the court's members is the least likely to be impressed by an all-or-nothing argument ...... Justice O'Connor...is quite likely to disapprove of one or both of Michigan admissions programs. But she is unlikely to support a sweeping prohibition against any consideration of race." Rush apparently wanted Bush to shoot for 100% and get zero,rather than take the approach that Justice has-which is to ask for a percentage( 60%, 75%?) and get 100% of that. Before Bush's tax speech, Rush trashed Bush based on a Reuter's column, which turned out to be totally wrong-Rush couldn't wait for the actual speech to get the facts.He grabs at any excuse to pummel Bush. Rush does not like liberals,but,his attitude towards Bush is, "It's my way or the highway."

[Miss Marple]

"Automatic, sycophantic boot-licking.."

But you're not attacking me, right? HAHAHAHAHA!

I suppose I wouldn't be attacking you if I accused you of "automatic, knee-jerk, mindless, Bush-bashing" would I?

It is to laugh.

[fightinJAG]

Thank you, BK.

[MissAmericanPie]

I am up to my eyeballs with this talk about incrementalism on the part of Republicans when the other side of the asile takes the ball and runs with it. Any skinny majority and they yell "mandate" at the tops of their lungs and plunge ahead with their agendas.

Incrementalism has gotten us so far behind that we can't see daylight we are losing so much ground. Now we have "Big Tent" Republicans, "Compassionate Conservatism", a no borders globalist in the highest office, and a Senate already cowing to Democrat demands. The country is sick of liberals, it's moving right, and if there is any time in history to make some big moves it is now.

[Guillermo]

Disagreement w/ Bush is not "Bush bashing".

I guess every Republican COngressman who didn't vote the way Bush wanted is a "Bush Basher", right?

Since Rush isn't always agreeing w/ Bush, I guess he is also a basher.

(You know, it's a GOOD thing to disagree once in a while).

[fightinJAG]

Having been accused of being a Bushbot, I think I'm entitled to speak on this subject.

I don't totally agree that Rush sets out to bash Bush at every opportunity. I think it just works out that way because:

1. Bush is a brilliant politician and Rush is not.

2. Bush has around him a brilliant team and Rush does not.

3. Bush is not prone to juspeebee (see previous posts) and Rush is.

Rush is just being his big, lovable self and it comes off as very unlovable sometimes.

When Rush annoys me? Easy. Click.

[jackbill]

Taking the top x percent from all high schools has the effect of discriminating against students at mostly white schools who do not fall within that top x percent but who, based objectively on their test scores, would easily fall within that percentage if they were at a largely minority, underperforming school.

You seem to be under the impression that ONLY the top x% of each high school gets into a state college. Not so. They do, but then the rest of the slots are open for individual merit.

[Miss Marple]

If disagreement isn't Bush-bashing, then agreement isn't boot-licking. You cannot have it both ways.

[bvw]

That's the kind of thinking that gets us Enronized.

[Guillermo]

You miss my point. It's the fact that you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS support his position, no matter how left wing it is and even w/out looking at the facts. You admitted this yourself on this thread (refer to post #11).

(Don't tell me you didn't support his education initiative).

[MJY1288]

I read over this thread and what Todd and Rush Limbaugh have failed to realize is that the Briefs that were filed used case law to support what GWB said in public. The DOJ nor the President is directly involved in the case. All they are doing is filing is a "Friend of the Court" brief that supports the Students (Plaintiff) and not the University of Michigan. The fact is that the White House does not support the Universities policies and said they are unconstitutional.

In the end, The only opinion that counts is the opinion of the SCOTUS.

Todd, Your principles swap back and forth more than the Warlords in Afghanistan could ever dream of. You have no direction, you just go with the prevailing winds like a well oiled weather vein.

Thanks for the ping Howlin, It's amazing to see so many trash President Bush over taking a principled stand and be bold enough to risk political capitol to weigh in on this subject. He could have been like many of these constant complainers and sat back and did nothing and whined about it after it didn't go his way

[bvw]

Case law needs a jubilee, so to speak, it really gets twisted up so much -- just my layperson's opinion.

[Miss Marple]

Actually, I DIDN'T support the education initiative! I still think it won't work, but it is the way things are going right now and I could be wrong.

The thing is, when I don't agree with the President, I either comment once and go on my way, or I don't say anything at all. It isn't very often, because most of what the President does is exactly what I would do. That must be why I backed him so strongly during the election.

I guess the next time I disagree with the President I need to post a thread that says "MISS MARPLE DISAGREES ON XYZ, AND FEELS BETRAYED, AND WILL NEVER TRUST THE PRESIDENT AGAIN!" Then maybe all you Bush-bashers will be happy. I doubt it though.

I do not understand why you cannot see that supporters of the President are LOYAL and are not going to attack him in a public forum, giving ammunition to the left. I do not understand why ANY variance from the "perfect" conservative position is grounds for name-calling, threats of bolting the party, withdrawal of support, etc.

I wasn't much on team sports, given the age I am, but even I understand that this is not the way to build a cohesive, effective conservative movement.

If you don't like my support of the President, well, too bad.

[B Knotts]

Agreed. I'm not Bush-bot, either. But, I have read the relevant parts of the brief, and it basically says: "You can invalidate this policy without having to overturn any previous case law whatsoever. So do it, already."

[meema]

Isn't that the truth!
I loved the speech, but this brief is chicken****!
I'm seriously re-considering that Mexican- descent 'gentleman' for the SCOTUS!!! What is he, another Souter???
What do we know about him, other than that he was against even filing a brief?
I'm so upset I can't even think of his name. The last thing we need is another Souter, or worse.

[Guillermo]

One can be loyal and not agree with him 100%. If everyone around him was like that, they would become "yes men". That's the LAST thing he needs.

I was just commenting on your typical reaction. I don't care really what your positions are. I guess we have a little of everything here, but I just find your sycophantic reactions quite predictable.

[justshe]

Credit to Miss Marple who pointed out what should have been obvious, upon reflection.

[ArneFufkin]

Yes, Counselor Olsen is soul deep with mad lawyering skills. I always suspect the SCOTUS badgered the WH into this brief just so they could have some fun parrying with a peer.

[justshe]

What about Miss Marple's statement that she HAS disagreed with Bush...but just doesn't abandon all support due to her disagreement...did you NOT understand?

You argue for disagreement being a GOOD thing....and then turn around with your: "Automatic, sycophantic boot-licking.." comment. Get real.

You ARE making personal attacks. No way to squirm your way out of it.