Posted on 12/06/2005 8:23:41 PM PST by MissouriConservative
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to uphold a law that says colleges cannot turn away military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's policy on gays if the universities also want to receive federal money.
New Chief Justice John Roberts said schools unhappy with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have a simple solution: turn down federal cash.
And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, said colleges can post disclaimers on campus noting their objections to military policy.
Law school campuses have become the latest battleground over the policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
Solicitor General Paul Clement said that when the government picks up the tab for things like research and education grants, the military also is entitled to demand "a fair shot" in terms of equal access for its recruiters to a university's "best and brightest."
Clement said the military is receiving nothing more than any other donor would expect.
A few justices, including David Souter, worried that the free speech rights of law schools could be hindered by Congress' action of tying funding to military recruiters' access.
"The law schools are taking a position on First Amendment grounds, and that position is in interference with military recruiting, no question about it," Souter said.
More court members seemed concerned about military recruitment in the post-Sept. 11 world.
Federal financial support of colleges tops $35 billion a year, and many college leaders say they could not forgo that money.
About a half dozen supporters of the law, all members of the same Topeka, Kan., family, waved signs, with slogans like "America is Doomed," and yelled at reporters and passers-by in front of the court before the argument. They dragged behind them U.S. flags tied around their ankles as they paced the wet sidewalk.
"The Supreme Court shouldn't even have to debate about this," said Rebekah Phelps-Roper, 18.
Some students camped out overnight to get seats for the argument. Dan Noble, 26, a gay Yale Law School student said that "you feel discriminated against when some recruiters will interview your fellow students but won't interview you."
Immediately after the argument, the Supreme Court released an audio tape to news organizations because of interest in the case. Cameras are not allowed in court.
Many law schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
Law schools have "a Hobson's choice: Either the university must forsake millions of dollars of federal funds largely unrelated to the law school, or the law school must abandon its commitment to fight discrimination," justices were told in a filing by the Association of American Law Schools.
The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities, including their law and medical schools and other branches, give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit money from federal agencies like the Education, Labor and Transportation departments.
Dozens of groups have filed briefs on both sides of the case, the first gay-rights related appeal since a contentious 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex.
The latest case stems from a lawsuit against the Pentagon by a group of law schools and professors claiming their free-speech rights are being violated, on grounds they are forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Free-speech cases are often divisive at the court. If Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to succeed O'Connor, is confirmed by the Senate before the case is decided he could be called on to break any tie vote.
A panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found it was reasonably likely that the law violated free speech rights. Alito serves on that appeals court but was not involved in the case.
"The question is solely whether Congress may fund education with strings attached, other Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding. This is long-settled law; it can."
Actually, they were arguing that the general rule shouldn't apply in this case, because it would restrain free speech. They weren't arguing that congress couldn't attach restrictions period.
Was the Harriet Miers nomination designed to piss us off so much that we woke up and paid attention?
Strategery?
I'm still puzzled over that one. It might have been a Rove move, to get the base energized for a good ole fashioned fight for a real conservative....but only God and G.W. know.
"Actually, they were arguing that the general rule shouldn't apply in this case, because it would restrain free speech. They weren't arguing that congress couldn't attach restrictions period."
But that IS why what they are arguing is so spurious; if the argument is that Constitutional limitations like the First Amendment apply to Congressional expenditures or programs that are optional for states or institutions to accept, that's a long dead notion. That notion died waaaaay back--Congress can tax (as long as it does so relatively evenly) and give back funds as it sees fit, for all practical purposes. The 1st Amendment has exactly diddly to do with situations like this, outside of the establishment clause, of course, and even THAT has been argued and settled law for a looooong time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.