DUH--It's Unanimous... SC: Colleges Must Allow Military Recruiters

[Mr. Kotter]

Supreme Court upholds college military recruiting law

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/06/scotus.campus.recruiters.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Colleges which 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, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

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.

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.

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.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[jspchief]

Universities trying bite the hand that feeds them.

I guess all those that are outraged need to quit and go work for colleges that don't receive government funding. Or just learn to live with the fact that world doesn't always align with their ideals.

[Mr. Kotter]

Universities trying bite the hand that feeds them.

I guess all those that are outraged need to quit and go work for colleges that don't receive government funding. Or just learn to live with the fact that world doesn't always align with their ideals.

The 'Ivory Fuggin' Tower'....is soooooooo out-of-touch with average citizens, it's pathetic.

[Pitt Gorilla]

The 'Ivory Fuggin' Tower'....is soooooooo out-of-touch with average citizens, it's pathetic.
ROFL You probably can't comprehend the irony of your post.

[Mr. Kotter]

ROFL You probably can't comprehend the irony of your post.

Sure I can. :)

Those "in the Ivory Tower" often condescend on at least two levels: first, thinking their education and "enlightened" attitudes justify their ideological and dogmatic arrogance; and, secondly, wodering whether a SD hick who happens to be a part of their "Ivory Tower"....could possibly possess the intellect to understand the nuances of such complicated and sophisticated issues.

Ironic, indeed.

;)

[Amnorix]

The 'Ivory Fuggin' Tower'....is soooooooo out-of-touch with average citizens, it's pathetic.


So are people in the Ozarks. So are homosexuals. So are religious nut jobs. So are.....

[Mr. Kotter]

So are people in the Ozarks. So are homosexuals. So are religious nut jobs. So are.....

Glad to see you agree with the types of kooks I'd associate most of them with....;)

[Amnorix]

Glad to see you agree with the types of kooks I'd associate most of them with....;)


:shrug: What is an "average citizen"? There's 300 million Americans. Some huge percentage are not white, and significant percentages aren't christian either. I think it's pretty much a joke to say "hey, this guy is out of touch with the average American" cuz I don't think there is such a thing, really.

It's one thing to say that someone (or a group) is a bunch of whackos or kooks. That's ok. And if you consider "ivory tower elitists" (whatever THEY are) to be part of that group, that at least is a statement I can understand.

Sorry, my lawyerliness is kicking in, I guess. :D

[go bowe]

...
Sorry, my lawyerliness is kicking in, I guess. :Dyou should try to keep that under control... :p

[Mr. Kotter]

Interesting question posed by George Will in a Washington Post article, related to this discussion:

Do those professors object to public financing of political campaigns, which compels taxpayers to subsidize political speech they oppose?

:hmmm:

If you are registered at the Post....

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701201.html)

[Mr. Kotter]

Also from Will's article....I'm already beginning to like Judge Roberts:

Roberts, in the opinion:

"Nothing about recruiting," Roberts wrote, "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters." Besides, "We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy." Then, Roberts's tartness: "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

ROFL

:clap:

[Braincase]

A. A career in the military is a good career. Academics need to be reminded that the Constitution guarantees a military, but not state-funded education.

B. Ivory Towers dot the landscape. Artists have theirs, academicians have theirs, Texas oil barons have theirs (although more obvious due to the bull horns on the front door). Until people start caring for each other objectively, we're stuck in a subjective world where those in power smile and nod, then bend you over without offering a reacharound.

C. Tell the commies to join the flippin' Peace Corps.

[Brock]

ROFL You probably can't comprehend the irony of your post.

ROFL Nor can you comprehend that in yours.

[CHIEF4EVER]

"Nothing about recruiting," Roberts wrote, "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters." Besides, "We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy." Then, Roberts's tartness: "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

That's some GREAT sarcastic humor. It is also common friggin sense. Man it is refreshing to have a SC that isn't filled with lefties. :)

[Nightwish]

I'm curious just what exactly was being asked of the colleges that they were complaining about? This line: "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" appears to suggest that the colleges were being asked to do more than merely allow the recruiters equal access to their grounds and facilities. If it is true that the government was trying to force them to promote the recruiters, as opposed to the recruiting agency handling its own promotion and advertising, then that should be an issue. But if it is the mere presence of recruiters on the campus to which they object, then they don't have much of an argument.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm curious just what exactly was being asked of the colleges that they were complaining about? This line: "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" appears to suggest that the colleges were being asked to do more than merely allow the recruiters equal access to their grounds and facilities. If it is true that the government was trying to force them to promote the recruiters, as opposed to the recruiting agency handling its own promotion and advertising, then that should be an issue. But if it is the mere presence of recruiters on the campus to which they object, then they don't have much of an argument.

Either way, the SC slapped down the colleges big time here....read the opinion. It's so ridiculous, and it's funny to see Law Schools get their asses handed to them.....

[Nightwish]

It depends on what the actual circumstances of the complaint were. If the complaint was about the mere presence of recruiters on the campus, then this is a case of properly dispensed judicial authority. If the complaint was about the college being forced to promote the recruitment activities, then it is a case of conservative judicial activism at its best.

[Mr. Kotter]

It depends on what the actual circumstances of the complaint were. If the complaint was about the mere presence of recruiters on the campus, then this is a case of properly dispensed judicial authority. If the complaint was about the college being forced to promote the recruitment activities, then it is a case of conservative judicial activism at its best.

8-0
a UNANIMOUS decision.... :rolleyes:

No one was being forced to promote anything; "tolerant" academics were simply being anti-military bigots....surprise, surprise.

[Boozer]

A. A career in the military is a good career. Academics need to be reminded that the Constitution guarantees a military, but not state-funded education.

B. Ivory Towers dot the landscape. Artists have theirs, academicians have theirs, Texas oil barons have theirs (although more obvious due to the bull horns on the front door). Until people start caring for each other objectively, we're stuck in a subjective world where those in power smile and nod, then bend you over without offering a reacharound.

C. Tell the commies to join the flippin' Peace Corps.

Regardless of the constitutional issues, for me, the whole Solomon Amendment situation is a pile of shouldn'ts.

The military shouldn't discriminate against gays, the law schools shouldn't exclude JAG recruiters from campus, and Congress shouldn't blackmail schools to force recruiters on campus.

[Boozer]

9-0
a UNANIMOUS decision.... :rolleyes:

I'll bet you twenty bucks it wasn't 9-0.

[Mr. Kotter]

Regardless of the constitutional issues, for me, the whole Solomon Amendment situation is a pile of shouldn'ts.

The military shouldn't discriminate against gays, the law schools shouldn't exclude JAG recruiters from campus, and Congress shouldn't blackmail schools to force recruiters on campus.

8-0

[Mr. Kotter]

I'll bet you twenty bucks it wasn't 9-0.

I like Boulevard Pale Ale....

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.

[Boozer]

I like Boulevard Pale Ale....

Alito took no part in the decision. (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06Mar20061300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1152.pdf)

[Boozer]

I like Boulevard Pale Ale....

You can send your check to the 37 Forever Foundation in the name of "Boozer." Phil will know where to send the receipt.

[Mr. Kotter]

Alito took no part in the decision. (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06Mar20061300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1152.pdf)

Unanimous, nonetheless......you have any doubt if he had participated, it would have been 9-0? Hell, if Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens signed on.... ROFL

[Boozer]

Link?

Unanimous, nonetheless......you have any doubt if he had participated, it would have been 9-0? Hell, if Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens signed on.... ROFL

That post is a link. If you want to screw over urban youths who don't know how to swim, go ahead and weasel out.

[Boozer]

Unanimous, nonetheless......you have any doubt if he had participated, it would have been 9-0? Hell, if Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens signed on.... ROFL

You'll note the phrase "regardless of constitutional issues." Those were my pure policy preferences.

[Mr. Kotter]

That post is a link. If you want to screw over urban youths who don't know how to swim, go ahead and weasel out.

I'm sure I'll donate again this year, as I have the past couple. I'll designate a portion of it with your name....if you insist on being silly about it....

[Boozer]

I'm sure I'll donate again this year, as I have the past couple. I'll designate a portion of it with your name....if you insist on being silly about it....

Are you trying to say you didn't accept the bet? And if you did accept the bet, I think it's only fair to give $20 on top of your normal or planned contribution...I was just joking about the receipt, you can write it off on your taxes if you want.

Would you be giving me shit about not sending you a twelver of BLVD Wheat if it were a 9-0 decision?

[Mr. Kotter]

...Would you be giving me shit about not sending you a twelver of BLVD Wheat if it were a 9-0 decision?

Of course I would. FWIW, it's Pale Ale.....heh. :p

[Boozer]

Of course I would. FWIW, it's Pale Ale.....heh. :p

If you're out of the normal distribution area, we can reach a mutually beneficial resolution...You make a $40 contribution to 37 Forever and I'll send you as much Pale Ale as I can for $20 (purchase+shipping).

[Mr. Kotter]

If you're out of the normal distribution area, we can reach a mutually beneficial resolution...You make a $40 contribution to 37 Forever and I'll send you as much Pale Ale as I can for $20 (purchase+shipping).

We can skip that: I'll make the donation....and you can bring the beer to the 37Forever event this year, or one of these years if you can make it. :p

[Nightwish]

8-0
a UNANIMOUS decision.... :rolleyes:

No one was being forced to promote anything; "tolerant" academics were simply being anti-military bigots....surprise, surprise.And what does the unanimity of the court's decision have to do with whether or not the school was being forced to promote the recruiters? It has exactly nothing to do with it, so I'm curious why you bothered to waste bandwidth with that completely irrelevant response. Again, the question I've put forward is: what was the exact complaint put forth by the college? Was it that they shouldn't have to allow recruiters on their campus, or was it that they shouldn't be forced to promote them? You haven't answered that, nor does the decision by the court.

[Boozer]

We can skip that: I'll make the donation....and you can bring the beer to the 37Forever event this year, or one of these years if you can make it. :p

Sounds good.

[Mr. Kotter]

And what does the unanimity of the court's decision have to do with whether or not the school was being forced to promote the recruiters? It has exactly nothing to do with it, so I'm curious why you bothered to waste bandwidth with that completely irrelevant response. Again, the question I've put forward is: what was the exact complaint put forth by the college? Was it that they shouldn't have to allow recruiters on their campus, or was it that they shouldn't be forced to promote them? You haven't answered that, nor does the decision by the court.

You called it an example of "conservative judicial activism".....

Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens??? :spock:

I answered your question in post #18:

No one was being forced to promote anything; "tolerant" academics were simply being anti-military bigots....

[Boozer]

To answer Nightwish's question, the law schools in question were not allowing military recruiters any access to their schools' career services centers. Primarily, this meant no on-campus interviews. Most law schools do not allow employers with discriminatory employment practices to interview on campus. So the military was looking for equal access, in a sense (same as most employers), but unequal access (access when other employers who discriminate against gays have none).

[Nightwish]

To answer Nightwish's question, the law schools in question were not allowing military recruiters any access to their schools' career services centers. Primarily, this meant no on-campus interviews. Most law schools do not allow employers with discriminatory employment practices to interview on campus. So the military was looking for equal access, in a sense (same as most employers), but unequal access (access when other employers who discriminate against gays have none).
Thank you, that's what I was wanting to know. For some reason, Kotter couldn't figure that out. He seemed to think that I was asking about the findings (that nobody was being forced to promote them), but I was asking about the complaint.

[Mr. Kotter]

Thank you, that's what I was wanting to know. For some reason, Kotter couldn't figure that out. He seemed to think that I was asking about the findings (that nobody was being forced to promote them), but I was asking about the complaint.

I answered your question. No one was being forced to promote anything.

I'm also multi-tasking/distracted......with the Tournament Selection show......heh. :p

[Boozer]

Thank you, that's what I was wanting to know. For some reason, Kotter couldn't figure that out. He seemed to think that I was asking about the findings (that nobody was being forced to promote them), but I was asking about the complaint.

This is a tricky question of baselines. If everyone is entitled to federal funds for such and such (think social security), the government can't deny benefits based on one person exercising his First Amendment rights. I.e., the feds couldn't withhold SS from an old guy who's a Scientologist just because he's a Scientologist.

On the other hand, if no one has a right to a federal benefit, the government can restrict that benefit for good reasons. Overgeneralizing here, the federal government can restrict federal education benefits to schools if they don't allow JAG to interview on campus.

[Nightwish]

You called it an example of "conservative judicial activism".....

Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens??? :spock:
I said "if it was [the latter]", then it is an example of conservative judicial activism. 6 of 9 justices are conservative or conservatively-slanted. Only five of those six, of course, participated in the decision. I also amusing that some of you have no problem with accusations that the overwhelmingly conservative SCOTUS engaged in "liberal judicial activism" when they uphold a decision that is favorable to liberals, but scoff at the even easier-to-believe suggestion that they might be capable of "conservative judicial activism" when they uphold a decision that favors conservatives.

I answered your question in post #18:
No, you didn't. You opined in post #18 that nobody was being forced to promote them, that it is just a case of intolerant academics. But at no point did I ask whether it was found that the college was being forced to promote them. I asked whether that was the complaint.

[Nightwish]

I answered your question. No one was being forced to promote anything.
You answered a question (with an opinion, mind you) that was never asked. I never asked, "Were they being forced to promote the recruiters." I asked, "Did they complain that they were being forced to promote the recruiters?" Do you understand the difference?

[Mr. Kotter]

You answered a question (with an opinion, mind you) that was never asked. I never asked, "Were they being forced to promote the recruiters." I asked, "Did they complain that they were being forced to promote the recruiters?" Do you understand the difference?

Of course I do. My answer addressed both your question AND their hypothetically ridiculous "complaint."

I just cut out the middle man. ;)

[Boozer]

You answered a question (with an opinion, mind you) that was never asked. I never asked, "Were they being forced to promote the recruiters." I asked, "Did they complain that they were being forced to promote the recruiters?" Do you understand the difference?

They complained that, because there were forced to associate with the military, they effectively had to promote the military. Because you normally don't have to associate with people you don't want to, others can reasonably assume that you approve of those you associate with.

That's the argument, and under these facts, its a pretty obvious loser.

[Nightwish]

Of course I do. My answer addressed both your question AND their hypothetically ridiculous "complaint."

I just cut out the middle man. ;)Well, next time you decide to "answer" a forthright question about the language of a legal action, might I suggest you try a different approach than opining about motives and what may or may not have occurred behind closed doors, especially when said personal opinion is neither supported nor refuted by any of the source material that has been posted, but is instead inserted from whole cloth into the discussion?

The opinion written by Judge Roberts addressed the question of "association," but not the question of "promotion." He opined about the ability of students to distinguish between sponsored speech and permitted speech, but did not specifically answer whether any of the complaints charged that "sponsored speech" was involved.

As far as "promoting" recruiters, Boozer could be right in that an association with recruiters is sometimes interpreted as approval of their message. But on a college campus, promotion is generally synonymous with advertisement. When outside speakers, entertainers, etc. seek time and space to speak or entertain on campus, they are generally responsible for their own promotion and advertisement. They have to go through all the channels themselves, create and distribute their own ads, posters and flyers. The only time they don't have to do that on their own is when they are sponsored by the university or by a university club or organization, in which case the sponsoring party is primarily responsible for promotion and advertisement. But if the Student Life, Student Activities, Student Union, or whatever, office is notified that recruiters will be visiting the campus on such-and-such a day, then that office prints up and distributes flyers, posters and ads, then it can be easily interpreted as the school sponsoring and approving the event. It is this sort of situation that I was trying to find out if it was happening, or was charged as occurring.