White House Brief Stops Short of Bush Speech (Folks, I really don't relish the next words)RUSH

rushlimbaughshow ^ | 1/17/2003 | RushLimbaugh

[MJY1288]

"Nah, Rush wanted to cut the legs out from under the liberals who characterize the brief as extreme."

That might be true, but not too many liberals listen to Rush :-)

(The attention from the "weakest links" just naturally followed.)

ROFLMAO, Very good point

[MJY1288]

You would think by the reaction from Rush and others that this case was Students of the University of Mishigan - v - United States of America

My Goodness, Ted Olsen filed a freind of the court brief not an announcement that he was planning to argue the case and represent the 2 students

[MJY1288]

Yikes, Mishigan = Michigan

LOL, I'm not hooked on "Phonics"

[TLBSHOW]

1995. President Bill Clinton reviewed all affirmative action guidelines by federal agencies and declared his support for affirmative action programs by announcing the Administration's policy of "Mend it, don't end it."

[Ben Ficklin]

I saw it reported on ABC broadcast.

This Dallas News article from the 14th is the earliest

[MJY1288]

What the hell does this have anything to do with this situation? Clinton would have filed a brief in support of the university?

Oh I get it, Bush = Clinton

Wow, how analytical of you

[aruanan]

Who is argueing

arguing

[MJY1288]

Thanks, I missed that one :-)

[holdonnow]

The reason that is only applies to race (although the Supreme Court has expanded it in some cases involving gender and religion) is because it was passed after the Civil War, along with the 13th and 15th amendments. The ONLY reason this was passed was to deal with race. What did you think they were talking about? You can research this yourself if you'd like. There are notes from the ratifying debates in the various states. I can assure you they were talking about race and race only, not about anything else.

[Ben Ficklin]

Here is the same article where you don't have to register.

[holdonnow]

If this case deals exclusively with the facts in the admissions programs at Michigan and Michigan Law, it sets precedent for NOTHING. The problem with this brief is that it gives cover to Sandra Day O'Connor and perhaps Anthony Kennedy to cut the baby in half, as Bush did, i.e., it's illegal as to the facts in Michigan, but not otherwise. You don't build precedence this way, which is why every conservative legal group I'm aware of was stunned with the difference between what Bush said, and what his brief argued.

[holdonnow]

Oh yes, it's Rush's fault. Isn't that the response of those who cannot defend these spasmatic lurches to the middle or left? Let's face it ... Ted Olson wanted to address this in a principled way, and others did not. The others won out.

[holdonnow]

Oh yes, it's Rush's fault. And Ann Coulter's fault. And Laura Ingraham's fault. And Ted Olson's fault. You're off on this.

[MJY1288]

I'm not an attorney, But what is the argument in the brief filed by the lawyers for the two students? and can they win? and if so, will it set precedence?

[holdonnow]

This is the first time since 1978 that this issue has so squarely been presented to the court. It's not a question of being sweeping, but doing what's right here. Ask Ward Connerly how much blood he has spilled fighting this issue for two decades. It reminds me of the signing of the campaign finance law, which violated every prior principled statement the president had made on the subject. He signed it at 2 in the morning, and left town. He doesn't do this kind of thing often, but when he does, I see no reason to pretend otherwise and spin it away. That's what the libs do.

[MJY1288]

I don't blame Rush, I don't blame anyone, My goodness the case hasn't even been argued yet. He is just commenting on this case like the rest of us.

But I think these two students will win this case and it is a very good start at reversing Affirmative Action.

[Miss Marple]

Please cite for me where I mentioned Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, or said that any of this was Ted Olson's fault.

I would like you to tell me what conservative groups, besides Landmark Legal Foundation, were stunned by this brief.

[holdonnow]

There are two cases here, joined as one. Michigan gave extra points to minorities in their admissions program. Michigan law set a quota of minority admissions acceptance of between 10-17%. The white students contend the obvious: that the 14th amendment prohibits race discrimination by a state. That was its original purpose. You should keep in mind that this was understood right up until Richard Nixon created government imposed affirmative action requirements in schools and workplaces.

[Ben Ficklin]

The problem with those who don't think that Bush is conservative enough is that they think that Bush's position is of greater importance than what the court thinks.

[OldFriend]

LOLOL no doubt there are freepers who would be complaining about the president if he walked on water.

As for Rush, his babbling is enough to irk my last nerve.

Twice in recent weeks he has proven to be so far out of touch that I find his arrogance and ignorance unbearable.

He criticized anyone who would actually use their health insurance for a 'measly' $250 doctor's bill. Our health coverage for one person is over $300 per month. Damned right I am not going to be paying for something that is covered. But then we didn't earn $25million dollars last year either. A week ago he laughed about no one would have a passbook savings account collecting 5% interest. Rush, not in America do you get 5% interest on your savings account.......you'd be lucky to get 2%........