The Supreme Court Crushes The Left
A short time ago, the US Supreme Court heard a case regarding military recruiters on college campuses. The argument made by the law school professors is they did not like the recruiters on campus, and that they should not have to have them on campus. The entire case revolved around the Solomon Amendment, which basically stated that if the colleges wanted their federal money, the recruiters had to have access to the university. Today, that decision was handed down. Reuters picked up the story.
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that universities that get federal funds must allow military recruiters on campus, even if their law schools oppose the Pentagon's policy prohibiting openly gays and lesbians from serving.
The high court upheld as constitutional a federal law dating back to 1994 that allows the government to withhold money from universities that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses given to other employers.
The New York Sun also picked up on the story.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.
Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.
Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. One case was in Connecticut, where a federal judge had ruled that Yale Law School had a right to bar military recruiters from its job interview program.
Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court, said there are other less drastic options to protest the policy.
"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.
The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.
College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.
When the Solomon Amendment was passed in 1994, many law schools gave military recruiters limited access. Harvard allowed the military on campus but declined to volunteer its career placement staff to arrange interviews. The University of Southern California, meanwhile, allowed recruiters to interview but didn't invite them to school-sponsored job fairs off campus.
But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon began strictly enforcing the measure. In the summer of 2003, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to require equal access.
Since then, law schools have grudgingly complied but also filed lawsuits challenging the law. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge in Bridgeport, Conn., ruled Yale Law School had a right to bar military recruiters from its job interview program, and similar cases were pending elsewhere.
The court heard arguments in the case in December, and justices signaled then that they had little problem with the law.
Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued.
"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote.
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
To the politically-correct, brain-deads out there, you shoul dhave known this case was a no-win scenario. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy the military has to pussy-foot around is retarded from the start. Personally, if the military's stance is that they do not want gays or lesbians within their ranks, then so be it. Unfortunately for the military, President Clinton believed they should have been an "equal opportunity employer."
That goes to show how stupid President Clinton really was regarding the military in the first place. The military is supposed to have discriminating tastes for they only wish to have the best that america has to offer in their regard. There are cases where discrimination in the military was wrong. Take African-Americans for example. During World War II, they were relegated to menial duties, and lies were told about why they could not many guns on battleships, or serve with a forward infantry unit. Times change, things change, and blacks are no better than whites in the military. As a matter of fact, no one is any better than any one person in the military. Being in the military requires a "team effort" mentality. There is no "I" in team, and everyone works together to acomplish their task at hand.
Personally, I do not understand why gays or lesbians would want to join the service in the first place. I know a couple of gay people. I know a few lesbians. All of them dislike the military for one simple, obvious reason. They do not want to get dirty. Okay, I can understand that. And thet is there choice, after all. Nor do I begrudge anyone in the military who happens to be of either persuasion. If you do your job, and you do it well, then congratualtions. You obviously do not fall into the category of a "victocrat." In other words, you do not hold up your sexuality as some sort of PC-like banner, and claim to be a victim, and demand special treatment. The only treatment you will receive from the military for "coming out" is a set of discharge papers.
The very idea that the law schools were challenging this was preposterous. The law schools claimed that their "free speech" rights were being infringed by having to allow recruiters on campus obviously are not teaching the concept of "free speech" all too well. Their speech is just as protected as a recruiter's speech. Both should be recognized, and accepted. At the very least, they should be tolerated. But, this whole battle goes back to how the schools and Leftist academia are working within the schools to undermine values and freedoms. And we have seen the list of academic nuts. As a matter of fact, David Horowitz has an eye-opening new book out called "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America." It is interesting to see how many of the people on Mr. Horowitz's list actually coincide with the radicals from the protest eras of the 1960s and 1970s, how far they have come, and how far they are willing to go.
But it took the high court to rule on this sort of malarkey. It is very simple for the universities. If you want your money, the recruiters have to be permitted on cmapus, and they have to be "promoted." You do not have to like them, but you must tolerate their presence. If you do not abide by this, which is a law, then you face a lawsuit from the government, and the revocation of your subsidy. It is a simple trade-off. Unfortunately, the schools--as they admitted above--cannot survive without federal money. So, in essence, the problem is solved, and the unanimous court opinion solved the problem for both sides.
Amazing what happens when the court abides by the law as it is written and understood rather than conjuring up some parlor tricks, and calling it "law."
The Bunny ;)
A short time ago, the US Supreme Court heard a case regarding military recruiters on college campuses. The argument made by the law school professors is they did not like the recruiters on campus, and that they should not have to have them on campus. The entire case revolved around the Solomon Amendment, which basically stated that if the colleges wanted their federal money, the recruiters had to have access to the university. Today, that decision was handed down. Reuters picked up the story.
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that universities that get federal funds must allow military recruiters on campus, even if their law schools oppose the Pentagon's policy prohibiting openly gays and lesbians from serving.
The high court upheld as constitutional a federal law dating back to 1994 that allows the government to withhold money from universities that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses given to other employers.
The New York Sun also picked up on the story.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.
Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.
Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. One case was in Connecticut, where a federal judge had ruled that Yale Law School had a right to bar military recruiters from its job interview program.
Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court, said there are other less drastic options to protest the policy.
"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.
The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.
College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.
When the Solomon Amendment was passed in 1994, many law schools gave military recruiters limited access. Harvard allowed the military on campus but declined to volunteer its career placement staff to arrange interviews. The University of Southern California, meanwhile, allowed recruiters to interview but didn't invite them to school-sponsored job fairs off campus.
But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon began strictly enforcing the measure. In the summer of 2003, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to require equal access.
Since then, law schools have grudgingly complied but also filed lawsuits challenging the law. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge in Bridgeport, Conn., ruled Yale Law School had a right to bar military recruiters from its job interview program, and similar cases were pending elsewhere.
The court heard arguments in the case in December, and justices signaled then that they had little problem with the law.
Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued.
"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote.
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
To the politically-correct, brain-deads out there, you shoul dhave known this case was a no-win scenario. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy the military has to pussy-foot around is retarded from the start. Personally, if the military's stance is that they do not want gays or lesbians within their ranks, then so be it. Unfortunately for the military, President Clinton believed they should have been an "equal opportunity employer."
That goes to show how stupid President Clinton really was regarding the military in the first place. The military is supposed to have discriminating tastes for they only wish to have the best that america has to offer in their regard. There are cases where discrimination in the military was wrong. Take African-Americans for example. During World War II, they were relegated to menial duties, and lies were told about why they could not many guns on battleships, or serve with a forward infantry unit. Times change, things change, and blacks are no better than whites in the military. As a matter of fact, no one is any better than any one person in the military. Being in the military requires a "team effort" mentality. There is no "I" in team, and everyone works together to acomplish their task at hand.
Personally, I do not understand why gays or lesbians would want to join the service in the first place. I know a couple of gay people. I know a few lesbians. All of them dislike the military for one simple, obvious reason. They do not want to get dirty. Okay, I can understand that. And thet is there choice, after all. Nor do I begrudge anyone in the military who happens to be of either persuasion. If you do your job, and you do it well, then congratualtions. You obviously do not fall into the category of a "victocrat." In other words, you do not hold up your sexuality as some sort of PC-like banner, and claim to be a victim, and demand special treatment. The only treatment you will receive from the military for "coming out" is a set of discharge papers.
The very idea that the law schools were challenging this was preposterous. The law schools claimed that their "free speech" rights were being infringed by having to allow recruiters on campus obviously are not teaching the concept of "free speech" all too well. Their speech is just as protected as a recruiter's speech. Both should be recognized, and accepted. At the very least, they should be tolerated. But, this whole battle goes back to how the schools and Leftist academia are working within the schools to undermine values and freedoms. And we have seen the list of academic nuts. As a matter of fact, David Horowitz has an eye-opening new book out called "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America." It is interesting to see how many of the people on Mr. Horowitz's list actually coincide with the radicals from the protest eras of the 1960s and 1970s, how far they have come, and how far they are willing to go.
But it took the high court to rule on this sort of malarkey. It is very simple for the universities. If you want your money, the recruiters have to be permitted on cmapus, and they have to be "promoted." You do not have to like them, but you must tolerate their presence. If you do not abide by this, which is a law, then you face a lawsuit from the government, and the revocation of your subsidy. It is a simple trade-off. Unfortunately, the schools--as they admitted above--cannot survive without federal money. So, in essence, the problem is solved, and the unanimous court opinion solved the problem for both sides.
Amazing what happens when the court abides by the law as it is written and understood rather than conjuring up some parlor tricks, and calling it "law."
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home