Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court slaps down crazy Colleges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court slaps down crazy Colleges

    WASHINGTON (AP) — 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 schools and their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the campus visits are an effective military recruiting tool.

    "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.

    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.

    Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.

    The court's decision upholds a law that requires colleges that take federal money to accommodate recruiters.

    Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court last fall, said there are other less drastic options for protesting the policy. "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," he wrote.

    "Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students — not to become members of the school's expressive association," 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.

    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.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2006-03-06-military-recruiting_x.htm

    I find it amazing that it had to get this far.
    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

  • #2
    Well, obviously the law schools are going to appeal until it gets to the Supreme Court. A good decision though. Colleges don't have the right to federal money. If you want to take the money, you have to follow the rules.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

    Comment


    • #3
      IMHO, the right decision. If they wish to picket the military's recruiters... let em. That's free speech
      Keep on Civin'
      RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

      Comment


      • #4
        And of course a key fact in the article that should be highlighted is that the decision was UNANIMOUS. It wasn't even close.
        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

        Comment


        • #5
          {sarcasm}Kicking people out of the military because their gay{sarcasm}
          Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -Homer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by flash9286
            Kicking people out of the military becuase their gay
            Take your trolling somewhere else... BEFORE you get restricted.
            Keep on Civin'
            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with the decision, but I was a bit confused about this:

              Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
              OK, I can kind of understand the "forced association" part, but "promote their campus appearances"? Does that mean they have to actively tell their students about these events? I didn't know professors were forced to do this with anything...
              Who wants DVDs? Good prices! I swear!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mao
                I agree with the decision, but I was a bit confused about this:



                OK, I can kind of understand the "forced association" part, but "promote their campus appearances"? Does that mean they have to actively tell their students about these events? I didn't know professors were forced to do this with anything...
                By promote I believe they mean that the military recruiters simply being there is an implicit promotion of them.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Damn it -- I find myself agreeing with the court's ruling.
                  A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                    Well, obviously the law schools are going to appeal until it gets to the Supreme Court.
                    Cummon Imran, you know better than that. Almost nothing can be appealled to the Supreme Court; you have to petition for a writ of cert instead.

                    But in substance I agree: To take federal bucks, you have to play by federal rules.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What do you think a writ of cert is? Another appeal, just not an automatic one.
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the campus visits are an effective military recruiting tool.
                        Thats irrelevant

                        "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.
                        Of course it violates their freedom of association, the gov't is telling colleges they have to allow recruiters on campus. If I have to allow people on my property against my wishes, I'm not freely associating with them.

                        Early on in US history the SCOTUS ruled Congress may not use constitutional powers to create more powers not found in the Constitution. But Congress also has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to fulfilling the powers it was given. This creates a gray zone where Congress might create laws in order to exercise a legitimate power that are not necessary and proper, but in this case there isn't even a constitutional power to fund colleges.

                        1) No constitutional power to fund education
                        2) Congress ignores that restriction and funds education
                        3) Congress then uses the funds as an excuse to coerce colleges
                        4) Congress says colleges shouldn't take the money
                        5) Congress doesn't have the power to give the money

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Of course it violates their freedom of association, the gov't is telling colleges they have to allow recruiters on campus.


                          Don't take their money then! Its not free money, it's basically a contractual relation. If you take the money, you have to follow certain rules. Kind of like when the IMF gives loans.

                          Do you not think it is hypocritical for schools to take that money and then try to ignore the rules placed upon that money? Regardless of whether you think Congress has the right, should the law schools be able to have their cake and eat it to?
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I hate agreeing with Imran.
                            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Don't take their money then! Its not free money, it's basically a contractual relation. If you take the money, you have to follow certain rules. Kind of like when the IMF gives loans.
                              Congress doesn't have the authority to give the money, much less dictate the unrelated behavior of the recipient... And this screws colleges that wish to keep their freedom of association intact by taking their money to subsidise the colleges that give up that freedom. Congress pulls this **** all the time, it takes our money to pay for stuff and then tells us they wont pay for the stuff if we dont let Congress make more of our decisions on other matters. Just look at how often the Feds threaten to withhold highway funds if states dont do as told.

                              Think about it, the SCOTUS said long ago Congress cant use a legitimate power to create powers not in the Constitution. In this case Congress is using a power not even found in the Constitution to create more powers not in the Constitution... And this isn't really contractual, Congress gets to change the rules and will do so once the money is accepted.

                              Do you not think it is hypocritical for schools to take that money and then try to ignore the rules placed upon that money? Regardless of whether you think Congress has the right, should the law schools be able to have their cake and eat it to?
                              Congress started giving our money to colleges for the purpose of educating people, not recruiting students into the military. I dont see hypocrisy in taking the money and then challenging Congressional intrusions into the freedom of those in charge of the school.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X