Another blow to the Libs

[Crookshanks]

Just heard on the news that the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that all universities that accept federal funds must allow military recruiters!

Last week - abortion rights; this week - anti-military I like the way this is going!!

[mookie2001]

not blowed yet

[Mr. Peabody]

Last week - abortion rights; this week - anti-military I like the way this is going!!

I think you are mischaracterizing last week's decision that abortion clinics could not use the Hobb's Act to prevent protestors from demonstrating against abortion as a decision having to do with the act of abortion itself.

You should really read more than just the headlines.

[boutons_]

Neither of these decisions have anything to do with anti-liberalism.

There are plenty of red-state, conservative, -kicking dubya-sucking females who have had, have, and will have abortions, no matter which was Roe vs Wade goes.

=========================================

Supreme Court Upholds Military Recruiting

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 6, 2006; 11:30 AM

The Supreme Court, in a case stemming from the military's policy toward gays, unanimously upheld today a federal law forcing colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus over their objections.

The universities, specifically law schools, had argued that making them host military recruiters on campus or lose federal funding was a form of "compelled speech" that made it appear that they were endorsing the government's exclusion of gays in the military, thus violating their rights of free speech and expression under the First Amendment.

The law, called the Solomon Amendment, "neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. . . .

"Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies," Roberts wrote.

The law regulates conduct, not speech, the court said. And unlike flag-burning, which is protected under prior decisions, the hosting of recruiters is not "expressive" conduct that sends out a message as a form of protest.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

=============================

Perhaps it was just left out above, but there was no mention above of law schools being forced to accept military recruiters because the law schools take federal money.

Totally separate from this ruling, dubya/ head have already emasculated military recruiting and ed up the reserves with their bogus Repug Iraq war. It will take years for the military to recover from Repug's bull abuse of the military.

A superb irony would be for the law schools to use the abortion clinic ruling protecting protesters to protect vehement protesting and picketing of military recruiters on law campuses.

[boutons_]

ok, taking federal money is the pre-condition

Supreme Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

by DAVID STOUT, NYTIMES
Published: March 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 6 — The Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 0, today that colleges and universities that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, even if people in the academic community deplore the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay people."

=====================

This kind of ruling was made in VN war era, too, IIRC.

Do military recruiters see law students as high-probability recruits? There simply aren't that many law students as %age of total population of that age group, and lawyers wanna go make tons of $$$, not get killed or maimed for dubya/ head's bogus bull wars.

[Crookshanks]

I think you are mischaracterizing last week's decision that abortion clinics could not use the Hobb's Act to prevent protestors from demonstrating against abortion as a decision having to do with the act of abortion itself.

This had everything to do with abortion. The clinics were hoping to use the Hobbs Act to keep people from protesting and maybe causing some of the women to have second thoughts. It goes back to the pro-choice crowd not wanting any restrictions whatsoever and wanting it to be as easy to get an abortion as it is to get a Big Mac!

[Darrin]

Supreme Court Upholds Military Recruiting

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 6, 2006; 11:30 AM

The Supreme Court, in a case stemming from the military's policy toward gays, unanimously upheld today a federal law forcing colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus over their objections.

The universities, specifically law schools, had argued that making them host military recruiters on campus or lose federal funding was a form of "compelled speech" that made it appear that they were endorsing the government's exclusion of gays in the military, thus violating their rights of free speech and expression under the First Amendment.

The law, called the Solomon Amendment, "neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. . . .

"Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies," Roberts wrote.

The law regulates conduct, not speech, the court said. And unlike flag-burning, which is protected under prior decisions, the hosting of recruiters is not "expressive" conduct that sends out a message as a form of protest.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

I have no problem with this ruling. What I have a problem with is cutting education funding so that those that need federal funding to be compe ive in a global economy, have to go to the military rather than go directly to college after High School.

[Mr. Peabody]

This had everything to do with abortion. The clinics were hoping to use the Hobbs Act to keep people from protesting and maybe causing some of the women to have second thoughts. It goes back to the pro-choice crowd not wanting any restrictions whatsoever and wanting it to be as easy to get an abortion as it is to get a Big Mac!

The SCOTUS must not have realized what the issue was about when they decided the case. According to the Supreme Court, this is the issue they thought they were deciding --

We granted the writ to consider the following three questions:

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals improperly disregarded this Court’s mandate in NOW II by holdingthat the injunction issued by the District Court might not need to be vacated;

(2) Whether the Hobbs Act forbids violent conduct unrelated to extortion or robbery; and

(3) Whether RICO authorizes a private party to obtain
an injunction.

We now answer the second question.

We hold that physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act. And since our answer to the second question requires an entry of judgment in pe ioners’ favor, we shall not answer the first or third questions.

[Yonivore]

The SCOTUS must not have realized what the issue was about when they decided the case. According to the Supreme Court, this is the issue they thought they were deciding --

The effect is the same. You'll start seeing protesters back at the abortion clinics with their aborted fetus pictures guilting women into reconsidering.

So, I think the ruling is a victory for the anti-abortion crowd...regardless of the specific point of law being decided.