PDA

View Full Version : A good call by the Supreme Court



Keith Wilson
06-28-2010, 07:57 PM
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

The University of California Hastings College of Law funds and recognizes student groups, but only if they don't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."

The Christian Legal Society won't let GLBT students join. Their literature condemns "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle", and members have to sign a statement of faith agreeing to this. The school said they could still hold on-campus meetings, but no money or official recognition.

5-4 in favor of the school. From Ms. Ginsburg's decision:
In requiring CLS, in common with all other student organizations -- to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations. . . . CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy.News story here. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/28/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campus-Christians.html?_r=1&hp), and .pdf of the entire decision here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf).

ljb5
06-28-2010, 08:04 PM
That's very interesting, considering the Kagan hearings are underway.

Basically, the Supreme Court just ratified her position vis-a-vis military recruiters at Harvard.

Keith Wilson
06-28-2010, 08:10 PM
Basically, the Supreme Court just ratified her position vis-a-vis military recruiters at Harvard.Interesting point. Yes, it seems they did.

Paul Pless
06-28-2010, 08:14 PM
A good call by the Supreme CourtI agree... a very common sense decision, in the very narrow area of campus funded organizations.


That's very interesting, considering the Kagan hearings are underway.

Basically, the Supreme Court just ratified her position vis-a-vis military recruiters at Harvard.I fail to see the connection. Not that my obtuseness should be construed as advocating restrictions on gay and lesbians serving in the military. . .

ljb5
06-28-2010, 08:20 PM
I fail to see the connection.

I suspect you're trying not to see the connection.

Basically, the Supreme Court just decided that discriminatory organizations may exist, but do not have a a right to demand the use or support of campus.

Not so difficult.

Paul Pless
06-28-2010, 08:21 PM
I suspect you're trying not to see the connection.

Basically, the Supreme Court just decided that discriminatory organizations may exist, but do not have a a right to demand the use or support of campus.

Not so difficult.Has the CLS been kicked off campus?

ljb5
06-28-2010, 08:27 PM
Has the CLC been kicked off campus?

Chesapeake Light Craft?

Paul Pless
06-28-2010, 08:29 PM
CLS... sorry for the confusion my typo must have caused.

So has has CLS been kicked off campus?

ljb5
06-28-2010, 08:35 PM
So has has CLS been kicked off campus?

You didn't read the article?

Paul Pless
06-28-2010, 08:37 PM
of course i read the article, so explain how this ties to kagan please... dadt is law and it has not failed a constitutional test, this narrow ruling does not support her position

ljb5
06-28-2010, 08:43 PM
dadt is law and it has not failed a constitutional test, this narrow ruling does not support her position

DADT is the policy of the U.S. Military.

That doesn't mean that it's the policy of Harvard Law School or that Harvard Law School is obligated to support, endorse or accommodate it.

Likewise, the Supreme Court did not rule the CLS unconstitutional, rather they ruled that the school need not accomodate them.

Notice please, that the Constitutional question here is not whether the group has a right to discriminate, but rather whether the school is obligated to extend its services to such a group.

Y Bar Ranch
06-28-2010, 09:26 PM
DADT is the policy of the U.S. Military.

AAAARRRGGHHH!

DADT is NOT the policy of the US Military. It is US Law.

Scott Rosen
06-28-2010, 09:27 PM
I think the issue is whether the school is required to FUND a student group. It's a real stretch to say it has any bearing on whether the US government can have a physical presence on campus. The US military is not a voluntary student group and it doesn't seek funding from the school. It also doesn't need a school's official recognition. To the contrary, most universities get funding from the government.

jbelow
06-28-2010, 09:51 PM
McDonald v. Chicago also had a good outcome. Another gun ban struck down ! I find it interesting that the 2nd amendment is tied into the 14th amendment as a fundamental right of freemen.

CByrneiv
06-28-2010, 09:54 PM
AAAARRRGGHHH!

DADT is NOT the policy of the US Military. It is US Law.

Ayup. It's the policy of congress, and the executive branch; forced on the military by craven fools who could not make themselves take a principled stand either way.

Clinton, Bush, AND Obama for the last 18 months.

ljb5
06-28-2010, 10:01 PM
I think the issue is whether the school is required to FUND a student group.

Not exactly, FUND, but one could say, 'provide funded services to.'

That is exactly the issue that was at the center of the Harvard Law - Military dispute.

Harvard Law never contested DADT, nor did they dispute the Military's right to recruit.... they merely said that they didn't feel the need to extend their own services to the military.


The US military is not a voluntary student group and it doesn't seek funding from the school.

It didn't seek funding from the school, it sought services.

ljb5
06-28-2010, 10:12 PM
And the fact that the government gave money to Harvard is totally beside the point.

Just because you give money to someone does not give you the right to dictate policy to them unless that is made a specific condition of acceptance.

If it did, I'd give five bucks to every politician and organization I disagreed with, just for the opportunity to demand that they change.

Scott Rosen
06-28-2010, 10:16 PM
Looks like you know the facts of these cases a lot better than I do. I should probably do some more reading before I do any more typing on this subject. ;)