Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking - Supreme Court Upholds "Colleges who accept Federal Funds must allow Military Recruiters"
FoxNews ^ | 03/06/2006 | Leofl

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiamericanism; antimilitary; antiwar; campuscommies; codepink; colleges; culturewar; federalfunds; ginsburgsnores; hippies; homosexualagenda; johnroberts; military; militaryrecruiters; militaryrecruiting; publicschools; recruiters; recruiting; recruitment; roberts; robertscourt; rotc; ruling; scotus; solomonamendment; supremecourt; taxdollarsatwork; unamerican; universities; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-340 last
To: Crazieman
Anyone want to head over to the DUmp and watch the mayhem?

I didn't see anyone reply to you and since I regularly troll there I've built up an immunity to their insanity. Here's the thread, mostly a bunch of childish knee-jerk reactions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2148083&mesg_id=2148083
321 posted on 03/07/2006 6:58:16 AM PST by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

Good, consistent ruling.


322 posted on 03/07/2006 8:23:06 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

federal funds includes student loans and grants... no way the college is going to give that up.


323 posted on 03/07/2006 9:02:33 AM PST by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

Just curious when Ann will apologize, without providing justification, for her prior statements on Roberts and G.W.B.'s decision...

Seems Roberts is doing well at the role he was given. To attempt to bring consensus back to the Courts, in line with the Constitution/law. THIS is why he was made CJ over Thomas or Alito, and why HE was chosen rather than other outspoken conservative favorites like Brown.

Certainly we still need one or two more Justices, but I truly doubt this result had Roberts/Alito not been on the court. Maybe this would have been the final ruling, maybe not, but 8-0? Highly unlikely.

Not to say the most "controversial" decisions will take this route, I'm not that naive. Kennedy is a wild card and the rest of the Liberals are entrenched in their world views. Still, this is a significant victory more so in that we had no dissents.

BTW, for folks wanting outcome based oriented results? Too bad. We've campaigned on wanting results adherring to the Constitution even if it doesn't favor our personal beliefs all the time. Bottom line is that if you take Fed money you are beholden to them. No one has to take that money. If they don't want military recruiters, stop taking the money. And if you don't want a pet liberal policy advanced in your school, don't take the money. Pretty simple.


324 posted on 03/07/2006 9:04:15 AM PST by Soul Seeker (Rush on the MSM: drive-by shooters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
When it somes to military recruiters, that is good, but when it comes to _______ fill in the blank, it could be bad.

Agreed, think of Title 9 affirmative action sports.

I haven't read the decision, but I'd guess that a lot of the the precedents are *very* liberal-oriented.

325 posted on 03/07/2006 9:11:27 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

over the weekend it was reported that Yale U officials said about recruiting the Taliban ..."we lost one already to Harvard and we'll not let that happen again...."

I would like to know what was the name of the terrorist recruited by Harvard...


326 posted on 03/07/2006 11:51:14 AM PST by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

The Law Schools focus their anger on the wrong entity.

Until 1993, the anti-gay ban was just DOD POLICY, that could have been undone with the ink of a pen by the Prez (Clinton) or the Secy of Defense.

But the cowardly, draft dodger, Clinton, had no credibility with the generals, so he dared not rescind the POLICY. Instead, he had the Democrat Congress pass the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) LAW.

The military, being bound by LAWS, has to obey. It has no choice.

So, the "military policy" against gays cited by the Law Schools is no such thing. The gay ban is a LAW passed by a Dem Congress and signed by a Dem President. If the military recruiters disobey it, they get court-martialed.

The Law Schools ought to be picketing Clinton, and the Democrat Members of Congress that passed it if they don't like the policy.

And the news outlets oughta be more precise. DADT is not "military policy," it is federal LAW.


327 posted on 03/07/2006 12:08:48 PM PST by carrier-aviator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carrier-aviator

What's with a BC law professor arguing against a DOD policy that is similar to the policy at BC? Why doesn't he present his argument to the crowd at the BC/BYU football game next Fall? Is this the same idiot that wanted BC to drop football a few years ago?


328 posted on 03/07/2006 12:33:24 PM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining

Nice!


329 posted on 03/07/2006 1:16:13 PM PST by okiecon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Academe is already dominated by unreconstructed Communists, the ossified remnants of the "free speech" movement that completely colonized, and subsequently destroyed, this country's campuses.

The only direction we can go in now is forward, which is why groups like Students For Academic Freedom, Campus-Watch, The FIRE, and sites like Critical Mass, noindoctrination.org, etc., are so critical to this nation's future.

The people that control liberal arts universities today espouse an ideology that is completely divorced from liberalism as it's been traditionally defined.

These people aren't liberals, they're fascists masquerading as free-thinkers.

330 posted on 03/07/2006 2:32:50 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ExpatCanuck

Alito did not participate since he wasn't on the bench when it was argued.


331 posted on 03/07/2006 2:58:00 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Alito did not participate since he wasn't on the bench when it was argued.

I understand that; the inference I got was that Alito would not vote with the more conservativwe members once he was voting, hence fewer 8-0 rulings, and that is what I was questioning.

332 posted on 03/07/2006 3:15:38 PM PST by ExpatCanuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: KavMan
Finally posted at DUmmies hahaha

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2148083

Looking over the thread, it looks like most of the posters over there agree with this decision, too. (On the basis that the federal government should be allowed to put restrictions on people receiving federal money.)

333 posted on 03/07/2006 3:20:14 PM PST by Michamilton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

THE most important line of the entire opinion, and one that I hope is pre-cursor of many more to come:

That is a judgment for Congress, not the courts.

This says it all.


334 posted on 03/07/2006 3:21:48 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExpatCanuck
I understand that; the inference I got was that Alito would not vote with the more conservativwe members once he was voting, hence fewer 8-0 rulings, and that is what I was questioning.

Once Alito starts voting, who would drop out to allow 8-0 rulings to continue?

335 posted on 03/07/2006 6:26:44 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
The only direction we can go in now is forward, which is why groups like Students For Academic Freedom, Campus-Watch, The FIRE, and sites like Critical Mass, noindoctrination.org, etc., are so critical to this nation's future.

I'd add to that group the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) who are challenging the limits imposed by the prevailing liberal administrations of most large universities in this country.

The YAF students are the ones holding affirmative action bake-sales, and conservative coming out events, mocking the underlying philosophy of the elders of the hippie generation now in control of higher education.

And I love FIRE, who has put the fear of legal action and negative publicity into these administration elites who seek to suppress and ostracize any spark of conservative activism on campus.

It is a comforting thought to me that as these ageing leftover hippies from the 1960's and 70's who dominate acedemia in higher education today naturally age out of the system, they will eventually be replaced by Reagan and Rush babies.

336 posted on 03/07/2006 7:43:03 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

"You may find states who accept highway money being forced to build mass transit or else."

You're close. Try "you may find states who have their gas federally taxed to 'build highways' find that their money goes instead to fund mass transit in other states, and that they get back less than they put in after the federal skim."

It sure would be nice if a single person here recognized that this is all about schools--public schools, in states, mind you--accepting FEDERAL money. Which has not thing one to do with Constitutional government, under which states could run their own schools as they damn well pleased and would get nothing from the feds at all.


337 posted on 03/07/2006 8:20:36 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

It's funny, I've met one prof who was openly conservative and he happened to be a math professor. I had him for stats and not only loved him as a teacher but for ones found a math that I absolutely loved.


338 posted on 03/08/2006 4:53:05 AM PST by Brytani (Democrats - destroying America since 1868)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

Actually, it's fairly easy to be an open conservative in disciplines where a lot of the faculty are emigres from former Communist countries. The leftists pipe down and you have supportive colleagues--they recognize the stench of the left instinctively.


339 posted on 03/08/2006 5:37:26 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Leofl

340 posted on 03/11/2006 5:27:40 PM PST by rhema ("Break the conventions, keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-340 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson