Ironic isn't it? The new Supreme Court decision regarding colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus was not participated in by Alito, because he was not yet on the court when the case was argued.

The irony is that during the confirmation process the liberals tried to smear Alito for joining an organization during his college years that defended on-campus military activities, in that case ROTC.

In a sense, this is a blow to the entitlement mentality. The law schools felt that they were entitled to the money since it existed. Clearly, the SCOTUS didn't agree. I love the fact that is was a unanimous decision. That leaves little room for whining.

I think it is interesting that the Roberts' court has been working in peace and harmony with few split decisions.

Steve: not so interesting...I think it was pretty clear that with O'Connor on the way out they were only going to hear cases that would be slam dunks, generally speaking, probably even did a little informal around-the-table polling before hearing the cases to see if there wasn't going to be controversy...nobody wanted a 4-4 on anything (although if they throw out votes from court members that sleep during arguments, they could get a majority vote again). We'll see what happens when some of the abortion cases show up...

They had to have known they would lose and lose badly.

How much of our money went to the courts to defend this?

Hmmm.

Frankly what I find curious is that Yale, a participant in this lawsuit, wanted to disallow military recruiters based on the military's treatment of gays. I.e. openly gay people would not be allowed to serve.

On the other hand Yale went out of it's way to get an **ex-Taliban** spokesman to join as a new student. This guy represented a government that buried homosexuals alive, stone women in the former soccer stadium like it was a sporting event, etc etc etc.

How they reconcile the two positions is frankly hard to see.

ed:

ya, a lot of the campuses that are doing this kind of thing are using the whole discrimination against homosexuals as the reason for keeping the military off campus, which to me doesnt make much sense. they're basically against the military, and using anything and everything they can think of to try to fight it. the position on discrimination doesnt add up to me though, because they are basically anti-war, but then fighting for the right of homosexuals to be able to go to war like everyone else? to me that doesnt add up.

they dont like war, but want gay people to be able to go fight in them like everyone else? does anyone else see that position as a little strange?

ive just read about the whole taliban thing, and have to look into that more before i can say anything. needless to say, expressing support for someone with ties to the taliban is pretty ironic for people who are concerned about gay rights.

Well, obviously it was the right decision. Anyone who gives money should have the right to include requirements conditioning the availability of that money. Yale basicaly said, the US Gov. had no right to supervise their own budgets, so this was an obvious choice. Right now it's being treated as something of a no brainer, but I have to ask. . . Couldn't this case be used as an argument for paycheck protection? Does the individual have fewer rights than the government?

But I'm sure this is common, I'm sure that people are terrified of ideological arguments based on money, because money is a language everyone understands, and I can even see an argument in here that can be used against McCain Feingold.

Mo Money, Mo Problems.

a lot of the campuses that are doing this kind of thing are using the whole discrimination against homosexuals as the reason for keeping the military off campus, which to me doesnt make much sense. they're basically against the military, and using anything and everything they can think of to try to fight it. the position on discrimination doesnt add up to me though, because they are basically anti-war, but then fighting for the right of homosexuals to be able to go to war like everyone else?

These schools started banning recruiters after "Don't ask, don't tell" was passed in 1993. Then the Solomon Amendment was passed in 1996, and the legal battle over the constitutionality of that amendment has been going on ever since (presumably settled now). As far as I know we weren't fighting any wars during that period, so the idea that this is an anti-war case disguised as a 1st amendment/discrimination case is pretty silly. See here:

Since 1990, the Association of American Law Schools has had a formal policy against allowing law students to be recruited by employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Those schools' "refusal to send the message of the military" deserves First Amendment protection,

A correct decision on SCOTUS's part, anyway.
I'd also note that Justice Ginsberg's husband is on the faculty at one of the law schools that brought the case, and she voted against it.

This is a big win for our military and the Bush administration and a slap in the face of elitist universities who have nothing but contempt for our military.

Funny that Bush is an Elitist (Ivey League Liberals) yet you ignore that.
Secondly some of those same 'Elitists' of the Universities that didn't want the ROTC on their Campus were the Neo-Con Young College Republicans types.
What a Great Job of Shooting Down your own Article. Bravo..Bravo!
I guess you also missed Sex Week?
Sex Week at Yale 2006
SEX WEEK 2006 is over, but we want to thank everyone who came out and participated at the events, ... The first event of Sex Week 2006 was a HUGE success! ...
www.sexweekatyale.com/
Those Liberal Neo-COns Lied to the Religious Right Didn't they?

Oh YAY Hypocrites!

Neo-Cons Are Piss-Bang!

These schools started banning recruiters after "Don't ask, don't tell" was passed in 1993. Then the Solomon Amendment was passed in 1996, and the legal battle over the constitutionality of that amendment has been going on ever since (presumably settled now). As far as I know we weren't fighting any wars during that period, so the idea that this is an anti-war case disguised as a 1st amendment/discrimination case is pretty silly.

Don't ask don't tell was an executive order I thought, I was actually in at the time, and I didn't pay much attention to the fact that my nation was feasting on it's own decadence, would have made me angry.

and the solomon ammendment is an ammendment to a bill that passed, so it's actually a law, passed as an ammendment to another law.

Argue the idea, not the minutae or language, if the idea is clear. Please, otherwise we look like uninformed ambulance chasing lawyers.

This is a big win for our military and the Bush administration and a slap in the face of elitist universities who have nothing but contempt for our military.

Funny that Bush is an Elitist (Ivey League Liberals) yet you ignore that.
Secondly some of those same 'Elitists' of the Universities that didn't want the ROTC on their Campus were the Neo-Con Young College Republicans types.
What a Great Job of Shooting Down your own Article. Bravo..Bravo!
I guess you also missed Sex Week?
Sex Week at Yale 2006
SEX WEEK 2006 is over, but we want to thank everyone who came out and participated at the events, ... The first event of Sex Week 2006 was a HUGE success! ...
www.sexweekatyale.com/
Those Liberal Neo

Um? other than the fact that bush attended Yale, NOTHING you said makes any sort of sense, I guess thats why I'm not a liberal. I'm not "smart" (read "RETARDED") enough to understand the herculean deconstruction of english language that you think is reasonable.

Hmmmm.

Anyone who gives money should have the right to include requirements conditioning the availability of that money.

Actually what's really interesting, and very very amusing, is that this principle is coming back to bite a number of universities right in the ass.

The issue is with endowments.

A lot of people have given very large endowments to their various universities over the years. In some cases the endowments came without any strings. But most endowments come with specific restrictions on what could be done with the money and where it was supposed to go. However a lot of universities have instead simply thrown the money into the general fund and did whatever they wanted.

A kind of liberal heaven. People give you money and you can ignore them and do whatever you want.

However a number of lawsuits are coming because the people who gave the money, or their families, are finding out just how uncontrolled these endowment funds are and how mismanaged and misused they are.

Princeton is a prime example. And if these endowments are rescinded, that's going to really hurt. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars spread throughout higher education.

ed,
Exactly. The small liberal arts school I attended was given a hefty grant each year by a very rich alumnus, on the condition that the school never have a football or contact sport team on campus. Her son, years before, died from a sports injury he suffered while playing ball for Penn State.
Many grants and endowments have such restrictions, either take this money and do this OR do/don't do this, and we'll give you the money.
It's good to see the "investors" are starting to take an interest in what's happening on the campuses they fund.