DISCUSS


and for the record suck it hard those who don't want the military recruiters on campus

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous. Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies. Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court, said there are other less drastic options to protest the policy. "A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote. The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money. College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year. The court heard arguments in the case in December, and justices signaled then that they had little problem with the law. Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued. "The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote. The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152. "

3/6/2006 11:39:52 AM

And you think law schools won't find a way around this? hahahahahahahahahahahha

3/6/2006 11:40:59 AM

Quote :

"College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help"

Right, and I cannot afford to stop pawning stollen merchandise.

3/6/2006 12:36:10 PM

Beggars can't be choosers

gg scotus

3/6/2006 12:44:25 PM

Quote :

""A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote."

= "so, yeah, uh, just because you have a right to associate, doesn't necessarily mean you have a right not to associate."

3/6/2006 1:13:16 PM

Why don't law schools keep this as a way to root out stupid people? If you pick the military over law school, chances are you weren't too bright, anyway.

3/6/2006 6:22:00 PM

Duke is gonna terminate you for that comment.

3/6/2006 6:36:50 PM

what's wrong with the military recruiting on college campuses?
other businesses are allowed to recruit there, so why not the military, it's a legitimate career path...

3/6/2006 7:23:27 PM

not if you're a university that is opposed to the military and/or war, including - but not limited to - the current conflicts

3/6/2006 7:25:14 PM

not allowing military recruiters on campuses seems straight up unpatriotic

i hate the iraq war, and i think our president is a dumbass

but the military is an integral part of our society and needs new people

saying they can't pitch their offer whereever they want is just wrong

...

just read the article

yeah, federal law trumps university policies

who would of thought?

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2006 7:38:54 PM

Quote :

"not if you're a university that is opposed to the military and/or war, including - but not limited to - the current conflicts"

who determines whether or not a university is opposed to a war?

3/6/2006 7:40:53 PM

Quote :

"= "so, yeah, uh, just because you have a right to associate, doesn't necessarily mean you have a right not to associate.""

not quite more like:

"If you want to associate with our money, you have to associate with our people"

3/6/2006 9:04:20 PM

actually, faggots who didn't read the article, the basis of opposition is anti-discrimination. The universities do not want to allow the military if they discriminate against faggots

3/6/2006 10:32:59 PM

And the Federal Government doesn't want to fund the University if they discriminate against the Military.

So everyone has their reasons. Everything is as it should be. The Army does what it must, the Universities do what they must, and Congress does what it must.

Sometimes what looks like a bad solution is in fact the only good solution.

3/6/2006 11:48:33 PM

Quote :

"not if you're a university that is opposed to the military and/or war, including - but not limited to - the current conflicts"

Yet if you truly enforce that rule, ie. banning anyone who helped supported a war, then you ban nearly every major company who's ever done business with the DoD as well as every Federal civil service position. Aerospace companies, auto manufacturers, airlines (who are paid to help transport troops afterall), 99% of the nation's major consulting firms (who've all done some contract with the DoD at one point), office supply companies, as well as all of their supplier chains.

3/7/2006 12:17:10 AM

yeah the issue for the universities is not whether the military's wars are popular or not, the issue is that military discriminates against gays and lesbians.

the whole point is moot anyhow. you get federal $, you play by federal rules. end of story.

3/8/2006 12:12:50 AM

Just another example of how backward the administration is. They have so little respect for science and academia that they will hold universities hostage to whatever fucking stupid political whim is entertaining them at the time. It's amazing how these guys naturally gravitate toward a nazi-like control of everything.

They went out of their way to suppress dissent -- the recruitment issue has no natural tie to university funding. By creating a link, the administration is simply playing political games. It's crooked and incompetent government, but no one cares.

They are wasting tax dollars, and some of you say "federal money, they can do whatever the hell they want!" No they can't. They have a job to do and a responsibility to taxpayers. Part of that job is to support higher education and research. Waging an expensive court battle in order to politically tie funding to recruitment is not part of the job that we want them to do.

But hey, we live in an era of lowered standards and docility.


[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : 456]

3/8/2006 12:33:51 AM

this is such a non-issue. get over it.

find a real issue to get worked up about. like, hey, maybe state-sanctioned torture, or warrantless domestic spying, or gutting the environment, or cooking intelligence to justify a foregone decision to invade a sovereign nation, or wilful neglect leading to the death of a major US city, or secretly approving transfer of operational control to a country that funds terror attacks on the US.. or any one of a number of GWB's "situational ethics".

the military has always been on campuses and always will be. if these kids arent smart enough to consider the ramifications of signing their life away, well fuck them.

3/8/2006 12:47:16 AM

So your argument is red herring?

[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 12:57 AM. Reason : Can you at least try not to be so willfully fallacious?]

3/8/2006 12:56:51 AM

Quote :

"the recruitment issue has no natural tie to university funding"

Really? It is federal employees being barred from these campuses, not some state militia somewhere.

Quote :

"Part of that job is to support higher education and research"

"I Disagree." If choosing who is going to get Federal Funding is not doing their job then I have no idea what is. I don't want Federal Dollars going to any crack-shack that claims to be a University. So they must have criteria that helps determine who gets funding, that they added one more that you disagree with doesn't change the fact that we elected them to make these decisions.

And it isn't like this could possible have been unforseen. If you asked me seven years ago "If the republicans dominate government, will federal funding becomes contingient upon openness to military recruiting?" I would have said "It isn't already!?!? That sounds like something politicians would do, I am SHOCKED that they havn't already done it."

3/8/2006 1:09:37 AM

Quote :

"So your argument is red herring"

it wasn't an argument. it was a STFU.



[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ]

3/8/2006 1:33:54 AM

Quote :

"Just another example of how backward the administration is. They have so little respect for science and academia that they will hold universities hostage to whatever fucking stupid political whim is entertaining them at the time. It's amazing how these guys naturally gravitate toward a nazi-like control of everything. They went out of their way to suppress dissent -- the recruitment issue has no natural tie to university funding. By creating a link, the administration is simply playing political games. It's crooked and incompetent government, but no one cares. They are wasting tax dollars, and some of you say "federal money, they can do whatever the hell they want!" No they can't. They have a job to do and a responsibility to taxpayers. Part of that job is to support higher education and research. Waging an expensive court battle in order to politically tie funding to recruitment is not part of the job that we want them to do. But hey, we live in an era of lowered standards and docility."

I might be talking out of my ass here, but I'm fairly certain that FAIR, itself, brought the lawsuit. Thus, THEY are the ones wasting gubment money. Even better, the fucking decision was UNANIMOUS. This isn't "partisan" bullshit from the administration. The whole god damned court said "eat it, fuckers, as long as you aren't a woman in the military." Thus, its really whiny pussies that are causing a ruckus, only the whiny pussies are the ones you "support," not the ones you dislike.

Oh, and just for fun, the Solomon Amendment was passed in NINETEEN NINETY FUCKING SIX, long before Dubya was in office and long after H Dubya was out of office (who was president then?). So, I guess if an administration was backwards, it wasn't dubya or his fathers' that were backwards...

what a fucking moron.

3/8/2006 1:58:14 AM

^ well put


seriously the SUPREME COURT made this ruling UNANIMOUSLY......the Bush Administration did not make this ruling



I swear some people dont think before they speak

3/8/2006 8:00:03 AM

Actually, Academia can still tell recruiters to go fuck themselves.

To which the Federal Gov. can reply lol kk /gkick and not pay any grants to the institution.

3/8/2006 2:13:20 PM

Quote :

"Really? It is federal employees being barred from these campuses, not some state militia somewhere. "

And that's simply not a good enough tie. University funding is for research, financial aid, etc, but it has nothing to do military recruitment. The two are joined by the arbitrary, highly political law saying they are joined.

Quote :

"If choosing who is going to get Federal Funding is not doing their job then I have no idea what is. I don't want Federal Dollars going to any crack-shack that claims to be a University. So they must have criteria that helps determine who gets funding, that they added one more that you disagree with doesn't change the fact that we elected them to make these decisions. "

Your reduction is asinine. The fact that they can add criteria doesn't mean that they should. My point is that the criteria they added was largely for political reasons, not good governance reasons. I can't believe a self-described conservative is happy with the government simply making decisions, rather than making the right decisions.

Furthermore, I don't see how, in principle, you can be happy with the federal government using funding as a club to homogenize political viewpoints.

Quote :

" And it isn't like this could possible have been unforseen. If you asked me seven years ago "If the republicans dominate government, will federal funding becomes contingient upon openness to military recruiting?" I would have said "It isn't already!?!? That sounds like something politicians would do, I am SHOCKED that they havn't already done it.""

No doubt, but this is a red herring.

---------

And now for the hypocrite:

Quote :

"I might be talking out of my ass here, but I'm fairly certain that FAIR, itself, brought the lawsuit. Thus, THEY are the ones wasting gubment money."

Right, FAIR brought the lawsuit, won, and guess who appealed it up to the Supreme Court?

Quote :

"Even better, the fucking decision was UNANIMOUS. This isn't "partisan" bullshit from the administration. The whole god damned court said "eat it, fuckers, as long as you aren't a woman in the military." Thus, its really whiny pussies that are causing a ruckus, only the whiny pussies are the ones you "support," not the ones you dislike."

I don't know whose alias you are, so you could very well be some burger-flipping moron. Just to catch you up, we educated people try to avoid making logical fallacies. For example, non sequitur. What does the SCOTUS's unanimous decision that the government can tie federal funding to recruiting have to do with my argument about whether the government should tie federal funding to recruitment?

I give you credit for trying, though. If you work hard, maybe one day you'll be able form a logical thought.

Quote :

"Oh, and just for fun, the Solomon Amendment was passed in NINETEEN NINETY FUCKING SIX, long before Dubya was in office and long after H Dubya was out of office (who was president then?). So, I guess if an administration was backwards, it wasn't dubya or his fathers' that were backwards..."

Two wrongs make a right, eh? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html. The stooges from 1996 who passed this shit are just as wrong as the morons today. Moreover, this case comes in the context of the current administration using federal funding as a club to enforce political views on a variety of things.

Now, hypocrite, let's imagine a hypothetical situation: Let's say a certain private, christian organization gets some federal funding because it's universally recognized that they provide some useful service to the entire community. Now, let's suppose some ultra liberal president comes along and sees the federal funding as an opportunity to force some ultra liberal policy on this private, christian organization that is completely unrelated to the useful service that the organization provides.

Would you be the true hypocrite and protest this interference, or would you support the government's excessive meddling with a useful private organization?

3/8/2006 6:49:41 PM

Quote :

"Would you be the true hypocrite and protest this interference, or would you support the government's excessive meddling with a useful private organization?"

Me, personally, would fully support this meddling. I have no choice, I lost the election. If I had won, I would have meddled with funding for anti-recruitment universities. But since I lost, a law is a law, and congress hath spoken.

I have no problem with the gub'ment pulling funding from good guys because I don't think it should be funding anyone (libertarian-republican) so all I can do is silently cheer whenever anyone has their funding pulled.

3/8/2006 8:19:56 PM

Quote :

"The stooges from 1996 who passed this shit are just as wrong as the morons today."

gimme a fucking break, dipshit. you were blasting this administration for pressuring colleges with this shit, when the fucking bill was made ten years ago. should the current admin ignore shit from 10 years ago?

Quote :

"For example, non sequitur. What does the SCOTUS's unanimous decision that the government can tie federal funding to recruiting have to do with my argument about whether the government should tie federal funding to recruitment?"

you are right. you are making a non-sequitur. My point was that this wasn't partisan bullshit, as you were alleging. nice try, though, dipshit.

Quote :

"Right, FAIR brought the lawsuit, won, and guess who appealed it up to the Supreme Court?"

well, what the fuck are they supposed to do? roll over and die? besides, it still doesn't change the fact that FAIR started it all, NOT the big bad evil bushies. I'm sure that at some point FAIR had a chance to roll over and die, like you propose the admin should do, but didn't. Only people you agree with are allowed to push their beliefs? Is that what you propose? "I don't agree w/ the gubment, so they shoulda stopped after they lost the first time. But, anytime FAIR loses, they can keep going, because I agree with them." and you have the balls to call me a hypocrite. what a dipshit.

Quote :

"No doubt, but this is a red herring."

no doubt, but you are a moron.

Quote :

"Furthermore, I don't see how, in principle, you can be happy with the federal government using funding as a club to homogenize political viewpoints."

how does a military recruiter "homogenize viewpoints" simply by being on campus? talk about a red herring... if anything, barring them from campus does far more to homogenize than does allowing them.

Quote :

"And that's simply not a good enough tie. University funding is for research, financial aid, etc, but it has nothing to do military recruitment. The two are joined by the arbitrary, highly political law saying they are joined."

please stop being an idiot. NO ONE is being forced into the military by a recruiter being on campus. what happens? the guy comes up to you and says "hey, you wanna be in the army?" you say "fuck no!" and walk away. thats the end of it. PLEASE, tell me how that is some horrible horrible thing. NOW, tell me why an institution which is fucking mooching off of the federal government SHOULD be able to deny a military recruiter from being on campus. Because thats what the university is doing. You can make all these high and noble terms for it ("research," "financial aid," "goat fucking") but it doesn't change the fact that they are MOOCHING. I don't think its a horrible thing to ask in return that they don't bar military recruiters from campus, especially in time of war. Given that the recruiter isn't hurting a damned thing, I think that maybe YOU should explain why the recruiter should be barred from campus, given that the university is mooching off the federal government.

Quote :

"Now, hypocrite, let's imagine a hypothetical situation: Let's say a certain private, christian organization gets some federal funding because it's universally recognized that they provide some useful service to the entire community. Now, let's suppose some ultra liberal president comes along and sees the federal funding as an opportunity to force some ultra liberal policy on this private, christian organization that is completely unrelated to the useful service that the organization provides."

I'm not entirely sure why you are posing a question to yourself, but...
How about I give you an entirely generalized scenario and ask you to make a value judgement on it, ok? lets see how that works out... dipshit

3/8/2006 11:45:43 PM