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

Skip to comments.

The Solicitor General's Brief: For diversity and against racism.
National Review Online ^ | January 21, 2003 | Douglas W. Kmiec

Posted on 01/21/2003 7:20:23 AM PST by xsysmgr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: hchutch
Ping my butt. This is the same guy who argued that censure, instead of impeachment, was constitutional. Robert Bork, among others, argued that was preposterous -- and was and is. Doug's a good guy, but he's trying way too hard to be nominated to the federal bench. I urge everyone to read these briefs themselves. Even Doug Kmiec makes a suddened turn from the law to "political" reality -- as he sees it. I know Ted Olson very well, and I know he wasn't happy about this. So pong, not ping ...
21 posted on 01/21/2003 9:09:28 AM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
As I said a few days back, when the less-than-sane were crying "CAVED!", this was a solid move by the Bush team.

The president took his case to the people, and Ted Olson avoided the obvious pitfalls of arguing the global principle (which may have actually hurt the case) and narrowed his argument to the case in front of the Court.

Brilliant.

They've taken yet one more bullet out of the Dems guns.
22 posted on 01/21/2003 9:11:22 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Yappin', clappin', mixin' and matchin'. That's strong.

Bingo. And that is strong.

Brrrrrrrrrr! Now go to class. ;-)

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

23 posted on 01/21/2003 9:28:54 AM PST by rdb3 (mhking keeps it diplomatic. I slide "G" when necessary. (Brrrrrrrrr!) What happened to that boy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
I don't like the whole idea of racial-preference policies. That said, having looked over the briefs, in this case, an aggressive posture was not the right call. I've read the briefs, and I've looked over the facts of that case.

The fact is, what is important is getting this policy overturned. It sets the precedent that race cannot be the primary factor (and anyone who sees that 20 points for being of a certain ethnicity as compared to 12 points for a perfect SAT score is going to admit that something is way off) used in admissions. We don't have any more chances after SCOTUS. To use the football metaphor, it's fourth down. No more chances after that. If we don't move the chains, we turn it over and that's it.

We have a CHANCE to get the whole enchilada, but if we don't pull it off, we're in a deep hole. We have, in my opinion, a certainty of moving the chains, and getting another set of downs, allowing us to remain on offense on this issue.

At this point, I'd rather move the chains, get that set of downs, and stay on offense.
24 posted on 01/21/2003 9:36:40 AM PST by hchutch ("Last suckers crossed, Syndicate shot'em up" - Ice-T, "I'm Your Pusher")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Then Olson is a gutless coward if he so hated the thought of signing his name to that brief, but did so anyway.

Does he love his job more than the Constitution?
25 posted on 01/21/2003 9:39:59 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
Jan. 21
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it scheduled arguments on April 1 in two politically charged cases challenging the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies that favor minority applicants.

In the newly released calendar for late March and early April, the justices will hear one hour of arguments in the case on undergraduate admissions and one hour of arguments in the other case on law school admissions.
26 posted on 01/21/2003 9:42:16 AM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I don't agree with your point, but you've stated it well.
27 posted on 01/21/2003 1:28:33 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

28 posted on 01/21/2003 2:12:00 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Did Reagan state it better?
29 posted on 01/21/2003 2:12:39 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Ping my butt... So pong, not ping ...
I'm glad you enjoyed this one so much. (Too much information, though).
30 posted on 01/21/2003 9:22:36 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Did you see this?
31 posted on 01/22/2003 8:10:32 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
I did read it earlier in the day.

Yet more "misinformation" being spread on this site.

32 posted on 01/22/2003 8:42:54 PM PST by Howlin (Well, a girl can dream, can't she???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It would be nice if you were right, and I hope you are.

I don't think so, however.

For the view of the Editors of NR, click

Here

You have freepmail, BTW.

Cheers,

Richard F.

33 posted on 01/25/2003 10:22:07 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 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