Posted on 03/06/2006 7:12:47 AM PST by Leofl
Just Breaking!!!! Supreme Court Upholds "Colleges who accept Federal Funds must allow Military Recruiters"
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I believe Ginsburg was napping at the time ;)
"I would feel this way regardless. I support the military, and I think they should be allowed to recruit on campus I just wish it could have been done without giving the Federal Government control over what should be a private institution what should or should not be allowed.
"
A private institution that lives and breaths the freedom that our military fought and gave lives for, is not a private institution but an institution that doesn't deserve to reside in this Country. Period!!!!!
Chief Justice Roberts:
"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,"
My point was that if the Law Schools consider the military "repugnant,"
It was the law professors who filed because they could appear pro se. But it was university professors as a whole that voted for that ban, and they cover a lot more than just law.
One odd little detail is that the Harvard Law faculty tends to be very liberal. So does the law school as a whole. But its was among law students at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago that the Federalist Society got started in 1982. Guess being force-fed all that liberalism finally got to be too much for them.
And liberals now get to realize what we small-government conservatives have known for a long time--if you get a handout from the government, there's ALWAYS strings attached. Once you take that money, if you want to keep it, you dance to their tune.
We've known it for decades with things like the Federal government bullying states into raising drinking ages and lowering blood-alcohol contents and mandating seat-belt laws by threatening to withhold highway funds. And now, the liberals get to feel the same pain.
Suck it down, fellas. Suck it down.
}:-)4
Right! I know what you mean.
You have a different view of what the word "freedom" means then I do. I may not agree with such an institution, but if they are not receiving public funds, I have no problem with them having a view different then mine.
No doubt....this will be the best part of the BushII legacy.
Thanks Lord.
YAY!! A win for the good guys!
The law schools say they can't afford to lose $35 billion a year in federal aid? Who says we need to be churning out lawyers at that rate -- especially when the "brightest" of the law school professors couldn't even convince Justice Bader-Ginsburg that they have a "right" to federal cash regardless of their policies toward the federal government?
I would rather win this culture war with the force of a good arguement, rather than through the courts"
The reason we are losing this culture war is because the left, long ago, decided to use the courts as the ultimate battleground.. We are forced to fight fire with fire because they want the Constitution to be rewritten for them.
I'm not suggesting they won't vote, and on core issues such as abortion rights, etc. Ginsberg/Stevens will vote as they always have. It will be on the issues such as emminent domain, partial birth abortion, etc., important but borderline issues when it comes to voting along philosophical lines, that I think this scenario of 8-0 votes will play itself out more often.
Oh It's gonna be a smelly day everywhere in Liberal land today!
WOOT! Thank you Mr. President!
Yesssss!
God Bless our brave Troops!
And may they recruit and multiply.
Cheers - Dinah
Anyone else out there have thoughts on that?
There is a conservative, states' rights argument on the school's side, but I don't know if that's the argument they used. The schools could argue that the federal government only has a right to specify how federal funds are used, but not to link acceptance of that money to other areas that are none of the Feds business. The schools could argue that the anti-recruitment ban is a state's decision, on a matter unrelated to acceptance of federal funds, that the feds have no authority to override.
I think those grants for R&D will be included in this. After all, the colleges are nothing more than contractors for the gov't. in these instances and like all contractors to the gov't. they must abide by the law of the land. (e.g. EEOC, OSHA, EPA etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.