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

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

[TLBSHOW]

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

Does not even start to put a nail in the coffin of affirmative action and instead keeps promoting race preference. Does not know why Bush keeps doing this? He is not happy and spent the first hafe hour on it and first call had to do with this subject.

[Miss Marple]

Hey, I am proud to be one! Your point is?

[Sacajaweau]

I agree with you. Diversity is an empty word and neither enhances nor prohibits "education".

What everyone is talking about is putting robins nests and eagles nests in the same tree and things will be better. Dumb!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

;^)

Thanks again!

(We be funnin' each other)

[Howlin]

I'm getting whiplash from watching "certain" posters change their positions; apparently said poster can ONLY parrot views he's heard from somebody else. As I have stated before, when you have no principles, it's easy to be led from one thought to another.

And I presume that if this was a decision that favors blacks, the Democrats would NOT be so upset.

Ridiculous.

In short, this is BOGUS.

[Howlin]

It seems there have been quite a few of "those times" when our friends here at FR have been dead wrong.

I guess that's what happenes when you cannot read and form opinions on your own, and have to resort to scan the internet, hoping to find something to bash Bush with.

[Howlin]

Not many.

[fightinJAG]

Oh, Miss Marple, you thrill me with your winning logic.

Look, Rush often misses the nuances, especially in subjects that take great training such as constitutional law. The lawyers he consults are often knee-jerk.

Believe me, I are one (a constitutional lawyer) and not only is there a whole bunch of law going on in a case such as this, there are tactics and strategies that will not be apparent to the first-time reader, even a trained lawyer. (Yes, there are untrained lawyers.)

I haven't read the brief yet so won't comment on its merits. But I agree that this sounds like another instance in which conservatives may be overlooking the power of incrementalism in the law.

And one more thing about the Supreme Court: If you want to win, you do not necessarily go in there with both barrels blazing. It ain't that kind of place. If you put a bunch of red meat in your brief, the radicals will jump all over that so fast, THEY WON'T EVEN LISTEN OR GIVE WEIGHT TO THE TRUE ARGUMENTS.

The Supreme Court is steeped in the doctrine of stare decisis and the exalted role of the Court as over all the land.

The justices get spooked, particularly on a controversial issue and particularly regarding arguments presented by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, if arguments are not presented in a nuanced way.

But nuance often escapes the untrained reader. Hence the charge that a legal brief is "bad" because it does not corrollate with one's political brief.

[Howlin]

It wouldn't be the first time Ms. Malkin is wrong.

[fightinJAG]

Yes, my friend Wait4Truth, this truly is a:

MISUNDERESTIMATION ALERT!!!

[fightinJAG]

Amen!

[fightinJAG]

"trust but verify"

LOL LOL LOL

[Howlin]

That sound you hear is your "point" going right overhead, out into outer space. :-)

[fightinJAG]

Yes, the 10% and 20% programs are merit-based. Michelle got it wrong this time.

That's okay. She's allowed, eh.

[AppyPappy]

I'm getting whiplash from watching "certain" posters change their positions; apparently said poster can ONLY parrot views he's heard from somebody else.

Oh c'mon Howlin. The Bushies have to figure out where Bush stands on an issue before they can form an opinion. When Bush changes his mind, they change with him.

Conservatives hold the same opinions even if they differ from the President.

[fightinJAG]

Well done, Prof.

[Howlin]

Before we all get crazy here, let's stop and remember WHERE this interpretation of what Rush said is coming from.

And remember just who has been bashing Bush and trying to cause dissention in the ranks.

[fightinJAG]

"the trite nonsense about diversity"

Exactly! Sometimes Rush and others go off on a rant about stuff that a first-year political observer would know is just foo-foo political-eze, not a substantive statement or a definitive characterization.

[Howlin]

I haven't changed the way I think about it, and I don't see anybody else here who has.

What I see is a known disruptor parroting something he THINKS heard on the radio today. Based on his past record, I'd say scrutiny is called for.

Now, HE has changed his opinion on this all week long, depending on what he hears; what you're seeing here is an attemtpt to once again set the record straight by those you sneeringly call BushBots.

I know it's useless with this particular poster, but it's hard enough out there without having people that claim to be on our side disseminating false information -- and on purpose, IMO.

[fightinJAG]

Oh, that was painful. I like Rush and it just hurt to see him engage mouth before engaging brain.

[justshe]

Thanks for the insight, from 'one in the know'.