# Should Dick Gephardt resign? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002 "2003-06-24T12:46:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/61 "2003-06-27T12:31:47Z")
Please don’t attempt that sort of coding if you can’t do it properly. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/62 "2003-06-27T12:51:03Z")
Thanks, **Demo**. Your scholarly and impassioned words have convinced me that your position on this topic is the correct one. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/63 "2003-06-27T13:07:41Z")
Gephardt was talking specifically about the two U. of Michigan cases before the Supreme Court. He said he’d use EO’s to overcome “any wrong decision” “tomorrow” (when the opinions were expected to be announced) or any other time. The UM cases involve a state school’s admission criteria and whether that criteria is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that racial diversity was a compelling state interest, so racial classifications could be used. The law school’s program was narrowly tailored, so it was OK. The undergrad program was not narrowly tailored so it was not OK. If the Court had gone the other way Gephardt couldn’t issue an EO saying that racial diversity is actually a compelling state interest, or that the programs were narrowly tailored. You’ve made vague comments about him proposing policies. All I’m asking for is an example of an EO that would propose something that could “overcome” a contrary ruling on this issue. Perhaps I am unimaginative. Please open my eyes and give me an example instead of merely repeating that he can do it. What’s the EO that would “overcome” a decision saying that (a) diversity in enrollment isn’t a compelling state interest, or (b) it is a compelling state interest but the policies were not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest. That’s all I’m asking for. Will he issue an EO saying that all Executive Branch employees should use an “icky face” when talking about the decision? The decisions don’t impact the Executive Branch, so Executive Orders are useless. Period. If you doubt that Executive Orders only issue to the Executive Branch then you’re wrong. They can only tell the Executive Branch what to do. Since the UM policy doesn’t implicate that branch an EO is useless. Even Gephardt is backing off of his comment. He’s abandoned the idea that the EO could overcome the UM cases. He said something that would sound good to his live audience and probably didn’t think many people would hear it. But he got called on it and, appropriately, backed off. He’s gone from the specific to the general. Nobody doubts that presidents, in general, can issue EO’s and that some of those EO’s might, in some way, alter the impact of a ruling. But in the specific cases he was speaking of, he couldn’t do it. > [@](#): > > The promise to take executive action to “overcome” is neither unusual in presidential campaigning nor threatening to our Republic. > > It appears, however, to be quite objectionable to those so unimaginative that they can conceive of no method more sophisticated than a brute-force power play by which a Pres could “overcome” policy setbacks. Pity, but it illustrates a kind of political thinking (and I use that term with reservations) that predominates in the right wing. I’d be interested in you showing me where I said it was threatening to the Republic or that it was unusual in campaigning, since I’ve said the complete opposite. I’ve never argued Gephardt’s some sort of threat. I’ve said his comments were wrong and those who say they aren’t are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/64 "2003-06-27T19:16:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I’d be interested in you showing me where I said it was threatening to the Republic or that it was unusual in campaigning, since I’ve said the complete opposite. I’ve never argued Gephardt’s some sort of threat. I’ve said his comments were wrong and those who say they aren’t are wrong. My apologies to you, **Zoff** ; I did seem to include you by implication in that category, and you most assuredly have not joined the OP in fearful bleating. I’ve found you quite analytical and calm. However, you do continue to insist that Gephardt’s comments were “wrong”, even though it’s impossible to pin down just exactly what he meant by the comments! While I may indeed be giving him too much credit for skillful rhetorical vacuity, it seems rather ambitious of you to analyze Gephardt for content in a content-free rhetorical soundburst. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/65 "2003-06-29T00:28:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by xenophon41_ > I’ve found you quite analytical and calm. I appreciate the comment. Thanks. > [@](#): > > However, you do continue to insist that Gephardt’s comments were “wrong”, even though it’s impossible to pin down just exactly what he meant by the comments! Well, I guess this is where we’ll always disagree. I’d say it’s pretty clear Gephardt meant. Here’s the question Gephardt was responding to (I typed this as I listened, I didn’t take it from a transcript): > [@](#): > > Q: We are awaiting a decision today from the Supreme Court on Affirmative Action as we know it. If not AA, then what? Gephardt answered second. His answer started by discussing attending UM Law School, then he said he filed an _amicus_ brief for the UM affirmative action cases. Finally, he said as president he’d issue EO’s to overcome any bad thing the Court did tomorrow or any other time. The fact that Gephardt said he’d use an EO “any other time” doesn’t change the fact that he said he’d use it “tomorrow”, which means he’d use it if the current Supreme Court case was decided badly in his opinion. There’s simply not another way to read Gephardt’s comments and I don’t think it can be said that I added context that wasn’t there. Gephardt’s entire answer was about the UM affirmative action cases before the Court. Every single thing he said was about UM, including talking about using an EO if the Court did the wrong thing tomorrow. I think that’s pretty clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002.md?page=3)