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

rushlimbaughshow ^ | 1/17/2003 | RushLimbaugh

[MJY1288]

I understand the fundementals of the Michigan case, Do you think by incorporating all forms of Affirmative Action into this case would help it or hurt it?

[holdonnow]

Whenever I have a discussion with you, you become defensive. I didn't say you mentioned those people. You did your usual diversion -- attacking Rush rather than addressing the substance. You simply will not accept any honest criticism of the president, even by those who adore him.

I mentioned only some in the legal conservative community who have spoken out today about this brief -- Coulter, Ingraham, and many others. You asked for others: Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Center; Linda Chavez and Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity; Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation; I could name many more, but you can do your own lexis/nexis and google research.

I'm not "stunned" by what this brief said. In fact, I'm disappointed. Race-based discrimination is deplorable. What happened to all those folks who demanded Trent Lott's head for his statements, but who either defend this race-based discrimination, or disparage those who question it?

[TLBSHOW]

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.

bump

[holdonnow]

You wouldn't incorporate all forms of race discrimination. You would set a single standard, and single principle, and that would be that race cannot be used under any circumstance by a government to make government decisions. That's what the 14th amendment is supposed to be about. The government (states or federal, under the 5th amendment) must not use its coercive power to discriminate against its citizens based on race.

[mrsmith]

"cut the baby in half"
OK, I understand.

But don't you think that is what the court would do anyway?
Isn't the public view of this issue going to have to be changed before the court will reject it's previous rulings?

[TLBSHOW]

1980s: A strong opponent to affirmative action, President Reagan cuts funding to the EEOC, rendering it 'toothless'. He also appoints Clarence Thomas, an opponent of affirmative action who is also black, to head the organization.

and

The power of rhetoric. George Bush justified his veto of the 1990 Civil Rights Act with repeated references to the word 'quota', which sounds bad. But in his 1995 speech, Bill Clinton justified the idea, if not the word, when he suggested that "there is still a need for set-asides".

http://www.duke.edu/~as1/aa-handout.html

[MJY1288]

If the students win this case, Will it set a standard. I havn't seen the briefs filed by the lawyers who represent these students. But I would imagine they make a pretty good argument. Has this case been hurt by the White House deciding to file the Friend of the Court brief on behalf of the students, or should thay have remained silent?

[Right_in_Virginia]

I see a different political reality than you do...so, I'm not angry with Bush's choice here as you appear to be.

Republicans may be loaded with the right principles...but we've been a little slow in finding a smart way to enact them.

Pushing our principles through with our elbows and shoulders only stiffens the resolve of the opposition. Gratefully, the president knows this.

[holdonnow]

The reason the court seeks input from the executive branch on core constitutional issues is because it is the branch of government that crafts the regulations to implement these laws and uses its considerable power to enforce them. Affirmative action is a practice started by the executive branch, and now has spread throughout academia and the workplace. It's simply inhumane to treat people as statistics and not as individual citizens who have constitutional rights to be treated as individuals. As for the court following the public's lead, that's what Congress is supposed to do. The court is supposed to follow the law, and leave the public influence to the elected branches. A court that is influenced by public opinion ceases to become a tool of justice.

[Miss Marple]

Pardon me, but the way that you phrased your question led me to believe that you thought I had mentioned Ann Coulter and/or Laura Ingraham.

We are discussing the brief and whether or not Rush was characterizing it correctly. We are not discussing your interpretation of my motivations, of which you have NO idea. I do not discuss YOUR motivations, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I want to know why Rush, who is supposed to be LOGICAL, cannot discuss a legal interpretation without ranting. I am quite able to do so, and I don't see why he cannot.

I do not pretend to be an attorney or any sort of a legal expert. I do understand the nuances of Supreme Court decorum, having paid attention over the last few years.

Are you telling me that Ted Olsen, Solicitor General, was overruled by underlings? Or are you inferring that President Bush, who is not an attorney, overruled Ted Olsen on constitutional law? I do not understand your comment, and would appreciate an explanation.

[habs4ever]

Are things really this predictable??lol ;-)Knock me down with a feather!

[nicollo]

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) set this whole thing rolling.

Actually, Plessy v. Furgeson (1896) did, and the 14th Amendment... and the Bill of Rights... Anyway, Brown is a great American statement, the first major correction of the vile Plessy that legalized segregation (in rail cars, the specific subject). To my mind, the ultimate statement of Plessy came when Nat King Cole took a dive into a casino swimming pool in Vegas. It was against policy. In fact, most black entertainers weren’t allowed to stay at the casinos where they performed. Cole’s swim so offended the patrons that the hotel drained the pool and refilled it with "clean" water.

It’s easy to forget what segregation meant.

When the modern conservative reads Brown, he will find nothing alien. The departure is where Brown was next taken, to busing, to affirmative action, to minority preferences in public contracts, etc. Here is the origin of it all, and the danger, in Brown:

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." [347 U.S. 483, 494] Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."

Anyone see the Michigan preferences system in that? I sure don’t, although I see how it was concieved. By admitting that segregation is wrong despite equality in facilities and services, the Court infered that inequality in facilities and services constituted segregation. With that inference, such things as busing and affirmative action were adopted as a means of creating equality of condition.

It is wrong. We cannot assume that the Court meant anything further than its statement on segregation. The Court did not demand that schools be constituted of mixed races. The Court said that exposure to a multiplicity of views is a good thing. It affirmed McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents that "intangible considerations" assist a student to excel where those "considerations" might not be available (i.e. in segregated, or, we can infer, schools made up of students of a single race).

Yet, we cannot assume that the Court meant that schools must have racially integrated student bodies. We can only understand that the Court stated that “negroes” would have better education were they exposed to “white” schools. The Court never stated that the law required that “white” schools admit “negroes” beyond where “separate but equal” laws were in effect. In fact, the Court stated the opposite: equality of condition is not a measure of equality. Equality is only measured by equal application of the law.

Unravelling all this will take time. The President's speech, and the amicus brief, go a long way towards it. Both are directed and effective.

Rush is wrong.

[holdonnow]

I have to leave, but you're right, we disagree. I see a lack of principle on the part of many in the party, and plenty of compromise -- farm bill, prescription drugs, campaign finance law, extending unemployment insurance, etc. That's not to say that some very good things haven';t been done, such as increase defense spending, and leading in war. But there are times to compromise, and times to lead. Abraham Lincoln was all elbows, and his cause was righteous. We Republicans have inherited his legacy, and are the defenders of those hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died on battlefields thick in blood and body parts to fight race discrimination. I really don't think we're throwing elbows if we uphold this legacy. It's the least we could have done. And then we defend our position with the public, most of which support our position (I know of no poll in which a majority of Americans support quotas or race discrimination, reverse or otherwise). Take care and good night.

[MJY1288]

Oh!! I see, You stir the pot and run off

Remind me never to retain you to represent me :-)

[TLBSHOW]

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

I would hope conservative free republic would be stunned.
When I listened to Rush he was stunned. I was stunned.

Rush broke this story at 12 noon today.

It took me an hour to decide if i should post this.


Posted on 01/17/2003 12:58 PM EST by TLBSHOW
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824514/posts

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]

HAR!

[MamaLucci]

Abraham Lincoln was all elbows, and his cause was righteous...

The beginning of the end of the US government strictly adhering to the Constitution began under Lincoln.

[mrsmith]

"The court is supposed to follow the law, and leave the public influence to the elected branches. A court that is influenced by public opinion ceases to become a tool of justice. "

That's what had happened- by the appointment of judges who would support AA.

It will be undone the same way IMHO.

[Miss Marple]

What conservative groups other than Landmark Legal are stunned? Free Republic doesn't count, as it has no official position, nor a consensus, as can be seen by this thread.

[TLBSHOW]

Is Rush wrong? I don't think so.