The dope-smoking, maggot-infested, ACLU lawyer types lose one for a change.
"We are terribly disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to uphold the Solomon Amendment," said Simeon Moss '73, Cornell press office director. "Cornell joined other universities to challenge the constitutionality of the amendment. [The University] continues to uphold the longstanding anti-discrimination policy."
Good, consistent ruling.
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.
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...
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.
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.
