First amnesty to illegal aliens, then stem cell research, and now this. What else was Dubyah saying just to get elected?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/10/213235.shtml
 
Bush Supports Racial Preferences
NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, Aug. 11, 2001
WASHINGTON - The Bush Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court late Friday supporting racial set-asides of government contracts. [b]The decision goes against the president's campaign pledges.[/b]

The court had requested the administration's position in a landmark case out of Colorado on racial preferences.

It was the second controversial position taken by the administration in as many days, following the Thursday's decision on funding of stem-cell research.

Libertarians, constitutionalists and conservatives had hoped the president would stand by his campaign promise to work to end racial quotas.

``Being in a politically difficult position does not forgive you doing the right thing - constitutionally and morally,'' said Curt Levey, an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and John C. Eastman wrote for The Claremont Institute: "Racial discrimination rarely, if ever, has any legitimate purpose, and instead undermines the very principle of human equality upon which this nation was based .... government must protect what we today call equality of opportunity, not equality of results."

They noted Attorney General John Ashcroft's own position. "In a 1998 speech, then-Senator John Ashcroft argued forcefully against any kind of race classifications in federal law: 'My own view is that the best way is to usher in a future of racial reconciliation by ending race conscious government programs, starting today. You don't end racial discrimination by promoting racial discrimination.'"

A Justice Department official said the filing should not be interpreted as the administration embracing racial preferences, only that the program in question was not improper.

``This is John Ashcroft doing what he said he would do during his confirmation hearings,'' spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said. ``When there is a good-faith argument to be made in defense of a statute, he will make it.''

Another Cave-in

Opponents of quotas were not mollified. ``I think this is not only horrendous policy, I think it is bad politics. To cave in so early bodes poorly for the administration taking a stand later on,'' said Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. ``I think the motivation behind this decision was political.''

Representing the administration Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court, "Congress has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination and its effects on government spending and procurement."

The government's brief also argued that the evidence shows when such programs are eliminated, disparities between the classes of people getting such contracts returns.

(continued)

Just Get Yourself a Notary

As the set-aside program stands now, the beneficiaries are those "who can attest, in a notarized document, that they are actual victims of discrimination and have suffered impaired opportunities as a result."

The justices of the Supreme Court accepted the case in March for argument this term. They said in a one-sentence order that they would hear argument next term on whether "set-asides for socially disadvantaged groups" are unconstitutional because they favor one race or ethnic group over another.

The case began in an earlier incarnation a decade ago, and has already influenced the course of so-called "affirmative action" by the federal government. The original case, Adarand vs. Pena, brought a 1995 Supreme Court decision that trimmed the Clinton administration's use of racial quotas.

Tough Luck, Taxpayers

The case was brought by a Colorado contractor, Adarand Constructors Inc. A white-owned business, Adarand lost a government highway subcontract to a Hispanic-owned firm, even though it submitted the lowest bid. The Hispanic-owned firm benefited from a government program that specifically set aside a percentage of U.S. Transportation Department contracts for minority-owned businesses.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case in 1995 that federal judges must apply "strict scrutiny" to such programs to determine whether they are constitutional. "Strict scrutiny" sets an extremely high standard for a program to pass constitutional muster under the equal-protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.

However, the 1995 decision was badly fractured, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing the court's opinion.

The four conservative and moderate justices who formed the slim majority with O'Connor agreed with the judgment, but only signed on to parts of her reasoning. Justice Antonin Scalia, while part of the 5-4 majority, in particular objected to O'Connor's finding that governments sometimes have a "compelling" reason for racial bias. O'Connor said governments could use that remedy only to correct a current, rather than a historical, pattern of discrimination.

In contrast, Scalia said government never has a "compelling" interest in treating one race differently from another.

The justices sent the case back down to the lower courts for a rehearing and a new decision based on Supreme Court guidance. Using the Supreme Court ruling, a federal judge then declared in 1997 that the federal statutes were unconstitutional as applied in the Adarand case.

(continued)

The Department of Transportation appealed, and a federal appeals court ruled that the Supreme Court ruling was "moot" - or meaningless - because the Clinton administration had changed the federal regulations.

The amended regulations require minority-owned firms to show they are "socially and economically disadvantaged" and to disclose their net worth.

At that point, the Supreme Court again took the case in hand, and ordered the appeals court to quit ducking the issue and decide the case on its merits.

However, the appeals court again ruled for the department last September, saying the set-aside programs survived "strict scrutiny" standards required by the Supreme Court.

Adarand again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing the government was practicing "racial politics" and had not fully explored a race-neutral solution to helping the truly disadvantaged.

Though not yet scheduled, the case now called Adarand vs. Slater probably will be heard in October or November.

But what does it [b]mean[/b]?