Solomon Shenanigans
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR on Tuesday. At contention is that several law schools are attemtpting to ban military recruiters from campuses based solely on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians. The sticking point for the colleges is the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment is USC 10, Section 983, and reads as follows:
Section 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and agencies
In other words, should any institution of higher learning deny ROTC access, or access to campuses by military recruiters, will result in federal funds being withdrawn from the institution. According to FAIR, the military's policy regarding homosexuals is discriminatory. That may be true, but the military abides by a different set of rules and regulations than we do. It's called the UCMJ, for legal references, and each branch has it's own rules. They're allowed to create these rules even though it may be discriminatory.
The Supreme Court seems set to support the Solomon Amendment. They contend that the federal funds involved are only available so long as the campuses don't violate their obligations to the government. In this case, the obligation is allowing the military onto campuses to recruit young adults. I must agree with the direction the court was going. If the campuses refuse to allow the recruiters on campuses, then the campuses are in breech of contract. That is what this case literally is. It's a breech of contract case that involves the federal government, and "contracts" they have with these colleges.
I see no problem with allowing military recruiters on campuses. It must be remembered by organizations such as FAIR that we do have a voluntary military. No one is drafted into the military anymore. And America isn't like Israel, and a whole host of other nations that make it mandatory that men and women serve in the military for a certain length of time once they reach the appropriate age. Here in America, if you want to join the military, then you sign your name on the dotted line, and your butt is the property of Uncle Sam until your term of service is done.
The following comes from the Dallas Morning News:
The lawsuit involved only law schools – scores of them – that have comprehensive anti-discrimination policies. But the Supreme Court decision in the case could have a bearing on an estimated $3.5 billion in various federal funds to their greater campuses.
When the law schools' attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, complained that the purpose of the Solomon Amendment was "to squelch even the ... most communicative aspects of the law schools' resistance," Chief Justice John Roberts cut him short.
"I'm sorry, but the most communicative aspect is saying what you think about a particular policy," Justice Roberts said. "This is conduct: denying access to recruiters."
When Mr. Rosenkranz tried to argue that the law – which now requires that the military have the same access to students as other employers – was tightened to stifle campus protest, the chief justice pounced again.
"It [the Solomon Amendment] doesn't insist you do anything. It says that if you want our money, you have to let our recruiters on campus," Chief Justice Roberts said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said that equating recruiter access with free speech would place First Amendment protections over almost any act.
"Your argument would allow schools to exclude anybody in uniform from a cafeteria," Justice Kennedy said.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia said they, too, were concerned that any act of defiance could be interpreted as an act of free speech protected by the Constitution.
Justice Breyer said the same logic would protect schools from losing federal funds if they decided to ignore laws regarding affirmative action.
"So you are saying that every time somebody gives as his reason for violating the law that he wants to send a message that he disagrees with that law?" Justice Scalia asked.
Chief Justice Roberts said the government hasn't forbidden schools from questioning military policy regarding gays and lesbians, so long as they don't exclude recruiters from campus.
"And when they do it," Mr. Rosenkranz replied, "the answer of the students is, 'We don't believe you.' "
"The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money," Chief Justice Roberts snapped. "What you're saying is this is a message we believe in – strongly – but we don't believe in it to the detriment of $100 million."
Justice Kennedy said the controversy amounts to a commercial transaction. He said he could envision a simple disclaimer on e-mails regarding the recruiting process – that the universities don't approve of all the policies of the various employers.
When Mr. Rosenkranz argued that the objections of the law schools were "especially [morally] value-driven," Justice Kennedy objected.
"Well, do law schools have an interest in the Constitution that other people don't?"
This is a simple case of the colleges wanting their cake, and eating it, too without fulfilling their obligations to the government. Chief Justice Roberts hit the nail on the head with the above quote--bolded and italicized for emphasis. They want the money, and they're willing to take it, but they don't want to earn it. They earn that money by allowing the recruiters on campus. And they're throwing a hissy fit because the government won't just give in, and keep the military off their campuses.
To the campuses involved in this, I only have one simple thing to say: Quid pro quo, ladies and gentlemen. There is no free lunch in this world.
Mistress Pundit
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR on Tuesday. At contention is that several law schools are attemtpting to ban military recruiters from campuses based solely on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians. The sticking point for the colleges is the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment is USC 10, Section 983, and reads as follows:
Section 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and agencies
In other words, should any institution of higher learning deny ROTC access, or access to campuses by military recruiters, will result in federal funds being withdrawn from the institution. According to FAIR, the military's policy regarding homosexuals is discriminatory. That may be true, but the military abides by a different set of rules and regulations than we do. It's called the UCMJ, for legal references, and each branch has it's own rules. They're allowed to create these rules even though it may be discriminatory.
The Supreme Court seems set to support the Solomon Amendment. They contend that the federal funds involved are only available so long as the campuses don't violate their obligations to the government. In this case, the obligation is allowing the military onto campuses to recruit young adults. I must agree with the direction the court was going. If the campuses refuse to allow the recruiters on campuses, then the campuses are in breech of contract. That is what this case literally is. It's a breech of contract case that involves the federal government, and "contracts" they have with these colleges.
I see no problem with allowing military recruiters on campuses. It must be remembered by organizations such as FAIR that we do have a voluntary military. No one is drafted into the military anymore. And America isn't like Israel, and a whole host of other nations that make it mandatory that men and women serve in the military for a certain length of time once they reach the appropriate age. Here in America, if you want to join the military, then you sign your name on the dotted line, and your butt is the property of Uncle Sam until your term of service is done.
The following comes from the Dallas Morning News:
The lawsuit involved only law schools – scores of them – that have comprehensive anti-discrimination policies. But the Supreme Court decision in the case could have a bearing on an estimated $3.5 billion in various federal funds to their greater campuses.
When the law schools' attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, complained that the purpose of the Solomon Amendment was "to squelch even the ... most communicative aspects of the law schools' resistance," Chief Justice John Roberts cut him short.
"I'm sorry, but the most communicative aspect is saying what you think about a particular policy," Justice Roberts said. "This is conduct: denying access to recruiters."
When Mr. Rosenkranz tried to argue that the law – which now requires that the military have the same access to students as other employers – was tightened to stifle campus protest, the chief justice pounced again.
"It [the Solomon Amendment] doesn't insist you do anything. It says that if you want our money, you have to let our recruiters on campus," Chief Justice Roberts said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said that equating recruiter access with free speech would place First Amendment protections over almost any act.
"Your argument would allow schools to exclude anybody in uniform from a cafeteria," Justice Kennedy said.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia said they, too, were concerned that any act of defiance could be interpreted as an act of free speech protected by the Constitution.
Justice Breyer said the same logic would protect schools from losing federal funds if they decided to ignore laws regarding affirmative action.
"So you are saying that every time somebody gives as his reason for violating the law that he wants to send a message that he disagrees with that law?" Justice Scalia asked.
Chief Justice Roberts said the government hasn't forbidden schools from questioning military policy regarding gays and lesbians, so long as they don't exclude recruiters from campus.
"And when they do it," Mr. Rosenkranz replied, "the answer of the students is, 'We don't believe you.' "
"The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money," Chief Justice Roberts snapped. "What you're saying is this is a message we believe in – strongly – but we don't believe in it to the detriment of $100 million."
Justice Kennedy said the controversy amounts to a commercial transaction. He said he could envision a simple disclaimer on e-mails regarding the recruiting process – that the universities don't approve of all the policies of the various employers.
When Mr. Rosenkranz argued that the objections of the law schools were "especially [morally] value-driven," Justice Kennedy objected.
"Well, do law schools have an interest in the Constitution that other people don't?"
This is a simple case of the colleges wanting their cake, and eating it, too without fulfilling their obligations to the government. Chief Justice Roberts hit the nail on the head with the above quote--bolded and italicized for emphasis. They want the money, and they're willing to take it, but they don't want to earn it. They earn that money by allowing the recruiters on campus. And they're throwing a hissy fit because the government won't just give in, and keep the military off their campuses.
To the campuses involved in this, I only have one simple thing to say: Quid pro quo, ladies and gentlemen. There is no free lunch in this world.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:17 PM
1 Comments:
I detect a different tone on the bench. It seems to say, don't pull that right crap on us anymore. I hope I'm correct. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home