Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: d  (Read 518 times)

Pancho

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
d
« on: December 07, 2005, 01:18:24 AM »
w

lawstudent3

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
While I disagree with the don't ask/tell policy, I can't honestly say I'd vote for the schools in this particular case.  It just seems like a relatively weak argument.

kmpnj

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
    • law school numbers
    • Email
I felt bad for Rosenkrantz.  Even Ginsburg and Stevens were hammering him and they're the liberals.  Roberts especially ate his lunch.

SCgrad

  • Guest
Yeah, the law schools don't have much of an argument here.  Not giving someone money is not a violation of their right to free speech. 

SCgrad

  • Guest
Yeah, the law schools don't have much of an argument here.  Not giving someone money is not a violation of their right to free speech. 

I'm really rusty on my media/free speech law, but I think one could argue something about prior restraint here. The government's withholding money would hurt the university's ability to perform, and the government would be withholding money based on the content of the university's "speech" -- in this case, a socially conscious policy.

It's a tough argument to make because they are not suggesting LSs not say something.  They said they can say all they want, but they have to give military a fair chance.  LS think having military recruiting sends a message that their words about discrimination are worthless, which I guess is a valid point, but quite a stretch by the law.

kmpnj

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
    • law school numbers
    • Email
Roberts nailed the law schools' case when he said "or you could just not take the money."  Then he pointed out that they had a moral objection to "don't ask/don't tell" but not to the tune of $100 million.  John Roberts is my hero.