Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (1558)	3/6/2006 7:48:05 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3029

The U.S. Supreme Court sharply rebuked America's far-left law professors today, ruling unanimously (that's 8-0, Justice Sam Alito having joined the court too late to participate) that Congress was within its authority to withhold federal funding from law schools that discriminate against military recruiters. In the case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the court actually went further (citations omitted): The Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence," "[t]o raise and support Armies," and "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy." Congress' power in this area "is broad and sweeping," and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. . . . This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the "reasonable" choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment's access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds. That is, Congress could force colleges and universities, even if they receive no federal funding, to treat military recruiters equally. It's very impressive that Chief Justice John Roberts, Rumsfeld's author, was able to command unanimous support for such a sweeping decision. We hope Congress does not take the additional step the court authorized. To see why, consider the Yale Law faculty's friend-of-the-court brief (PDF; quoted passage on pp. 2-3) against equal access: The Faculty Members object not to the mere presence of military recruiters, but to being forced to assist the military in telling some Yale Law students that they are not fit to serve in our country's armed forces because of their sexual orientation.* The Faculty Members deeply respect those who serve in our nation's armed forces. They find both demeaning and stigmatizing Petitioners' insistence upon excluding Yale's gay, lesbian, and bisexual students from those forces. The [Defense Department's] demand that Faculty Members not just tolerate, but actively aid and abet, their discriminatory recruitment practices undermines the Faculty Members' commitment to maintain a tolerant and inclusive educational environment for all Yale law students. For the Faculty now to surrender to the Government's coercion--even to protect the University's finances--would inevitably erode all students' faith in the Faculty Members' commitment to treat them with equal respect and dignity. Under current law, this claim of "coercion" is nonsense. Yale takes taxpayer money, which comes with strings attached; but it is free to pass up the money if its principles demand. And of course the university is free to show its contempt for America in other ways, for instance by admitting former Taliban officials. The worst of which the Yale and other faculties can complain is bribery: The government is offering them money to act against the professed principles. Will any institution of higher education respond to the Rumsfeld ruling by declining to accept federal funds? The answer to that question will show us all how much those principles are worth. * But they support the troops! opinionjournal.com