Supreme Court Allows Recruiters on Campus - Reverses 3rd Circuit

[Sonar5]

Supreme Court Upholds recruiters on Campus

I still think this is funny, and it was the right decision.

All these ALLEGED pro-choice liberals who oppose conservative or COMMON SENSE viewpoints are usually, IMHO part of these groups who don't want to allow Military Recruiters on Campus.

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186936,00.html

The nation's top law schools lost a significant legal argument on Monday when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could withhold funding from schools that bar military recruiters in protest of the anti-gay "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I think this is a good ruling.

Why, because the Colleges and Universities HAVE A CHOICE, that is why. They have the choice of NOT accepting Federal funds and then they can kick off who they want.

But you can't say we'll take the money but not allow the people who gave you the money to set up shop.

So I say withhold money from the campuses who kick off the recruiters.

You can read the decision here:
SCOTUS Decision

Good to see SCOTUS hopping back on track.....

I'm filing this one under.......

wait for it........


here it comes......


ready or not........




SCOREBOARD

 

[AdamZ]

Well Sonar don't particularly consider myself too conservative but then again I'm not liberal either. ( The Politcal compas site you posted showed that. smack dab in the middle) And I have to say I am pleased with the decision. As an American it Ticked me off that colleges would not let the Service recuriters on campus. I mean it really made me angry so I'm not quite sure its a liberal / conservative issue. I was never in the service and to be frank that is one of my big regrets. It really irked me that some of these schools who wouldn't let recuriters on campus let other employers that probably had some skeletons ie they may have discriminated or been pollutors etc. How do they determine what employers to let on. I'd bet these campuses let representatives of groups like the PLO on campus to give 'lectures'. Grrrr glad it turned out the way it did.

 

[EdFred]

**rechecks the name of the website**

Hmmmm....yep, still says pilotsofamerica, not politicsofamerica

 

[Sonar5]

**rechecks the name of the website**

Hmmmm....yep, still says pilotsofamerica, not politicsofamerica

Hmmm... rechecked Forum description,,, and guess what

Open forum for discussion of any topic you like, aviation related or otherwise. Virtually all topics in this forum are permitted - so long as they are discussed in a civil manner.

yep, all is well. Thanks for the kind and civil comment.......

PS - Ironic, yes?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69881#post69881

 

[Sonar5]

Well Sonar don't particularly consider myself too conservative but then again I'm not liberal either. ( The Politcal compas site you posted showed that. smack dab in the middle) And I have to say I am pleased with the decision. As an American it Ticked me off that colleges would not let the Service recuriters on campus. I mean it really made me angry so I'm not quite sure its a liberal / conservative issue. I was never in the service and to be frank that is one of my big regrets. It really irked me that some of these schools who wouldn't let recuriters on campus let other employers that probably had some skeletons ie they may have discriminated or been pollutors etc. How do they determine what employers to let on. I'd bet these campuses let representatives of groups like the PLO on campus to give 'lectures'. Grrrr glad it turned out the way it did.

Thanks Adam for the comments.

In the runup to the Iraq United Nations Operation, quite a few protestors who enjoy the support of the left in this country opined about this issue and that recruiters should not be allowed due to Free Speech and the University's right to keep them off.

What is also interesting about this is the fact that this ruling was Unanimous for those who ruled. Alito recused on this one.

I just remember quite a few articles by the left who opposed the United Nations Iraq operation when this story was deemed newsworthy by the lame stream press.

This is a good ruling.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Yes

 

[Brian Austin]

Anytime you take federal funds, you get some sort of handcuffs with it. Don't like it? Don't take the money. Want the money? Deal with the handcuffs. Seems simple enough to me.

Too many people want their 'cut' but not abide by the agreements. Quite the example they're setting for their students.

 

[Sonar5]

Anytime you take federal funds, you get some sort of handcuffs with it. Don't like it? Don't take the money. Want the money? Deal with the handcuffs. Seems simple enough to me.

Too many people want their 'cut' but not abide by the agreements. Quite the example they're setting for their students.

Good points.

I think the example they were trying to set is that lawyers can become judges and legislate from the bench and now we have a supreme court that is finally going to put a stop to that practice.

Unfortunately for them, their exampe backfired when the SCOTUS changed out two.

They effectively said, you have a choice and if you choose not to exercise that choice don't come whining to the courts....... You'll lose...

 

[alaskaflyer]

Wonder what percentage of military recruits come from the nations' law schools?

 

[Ghery]

Wonder what percentage of military recruits come from the nations' law schools?

I would imagine a rather high percentage of the folks in the JAG office. Otherwise, probably fairly low.

 

[Sonar5]

And a Funny rep post left too.....

Wonder what percentage of military recruits come from the nations' law schools?

Good Question.

I would imagine for attorneys, they have a payback plan. I know they enter in at O-3 Grade, at least I still think that is true, it's been a while.

I would think their main push would be for the attorney side, and then they get the occasional other opportunities.

It's like any other drive, I'm sure it is numbers driven, and if it didn't work, it's the military, they'll keep trying anyway.

Maybe there is some paper on it out there somewhere. Who Knows...

Regards,
Joe

PS - On the humor side, I just got a rep post on this thread. Funny stuff. Anonymous of course, too funny... Here is what it said...

"This right-wing political crap has no place on POA"

Funny how some consider Military recruiting to be Right Wing Political Crap. Just shows how wrong the left is when they have thoughts like this.

Anyway, I got a good laugh out of it, so whomever left that one. Thanks, I appreciate the chuckle.

 

[grattonja]

Good points.

I think the example they were trying to set is that lawyers can become judges and legislate from the bench and now we have a supreme court that is finally going to put a stop to that practice.

Unfortunately for them, their exampe backfired when the SCOTUS changed out two.

They effectively said, you have a choice and if you choose not to exercise that choice don't come whining to the courts....... You'll lose...

I've got a fairly good head cold going today, so I may be just a bit fuzzy headed, but why the need to drag "lawyers" into this discussion? There are two pretty active lawyers on this board, Adam Z and myself. Adam has already come out in agreement with you. I was poised to do the same, because I agree that it is not appropriate for colleges to take the $ and then think they can ban the recruiting. I never had a problem with the recruiting on campus anyway. We gotta get an army somewhere, and why not get officers from the so called "smart people" (although the whole thing with the muslim kid and the SUV down south does make me wonder just "how smart".)

Not all lawyers are the spawn of satan. Only SOME lawyers are ...

Jim G

 

[woodstock]

I've got a fairly good head cold going today, so I may be just a bit fuzzy headed, but why the need to drag "lawyers" into this discussion? There are two pretty active lawyers on this board, Adam Z and myself. Adam has already come out in agreement with you. I was poised to do the same, because I agree that it is not appropriate for colleges to take the $ and then think they can ban the recruiting. I never had a problem with the recruiting on campus anyway. We gotta get an army somewhere, and why not get officers from the so called "smart people" (although the whole thing with the muslim kid and the SUV down south does make me wonder just "how smart".)

Not all lawyers are the spawn of satan. Only SOME lawyers are ...

Jim G

well said Jim. from another lawyer...

 

[Frank Browne]

Did ya hear the one about the lawyer and the farmer's daughter....

Just kidding!

 

[Brian Austin]

Lawyers make easy targets for this type of stuff but it's important to remember that it's more about the individual than the profession. All IT guys/gals aren't geeks, all lawyers aren't liberals intent on destroying the Constitution, and all conservative VP's don't shoot their hunting partners.

 

[Greebo]

Is it time for me to pull out my "Gold Rat" story?

 

[Sonar5]

I've got a fairly good head cold going today, so I may be just a bit fuzzy headed, but why the need to drag "lawyers" into this discussion? There are two pretty active lawyers on this board, Adam Z and myself. Adam has already come out in agreement with you. I was poised to do the same, because I agree that it is not appropriate for colleges to take the $ and then think they can ban the recruiting. I never had a problem with the recruiting on campus anyway. We gotta get an army somewhere, and why not get officers from the so called "smart people" (although the whole thing with the muslim kid and the SUV down south does make me wonder just "how smart".)

Not all lawyers are the spawn of satan. Only SOME lawyers are ...

Jim G

Jim, I said lawyers who become judges and then legislate from the bench. Scroll up and please read what I wrote again.

I never said ALL lawyers. Please ask for a clarification before making the assumption of what I said when I didn't say ALL Lawyers are the spawn of satan.

And the reason I dragged lawyers into this is it is due to SOME lawyers in the first place that this case was even heard.

BTW- I hope you feel better.

 

[Sonar5]

well said Jim. from another lawyer...

I disagree, he should have asked for a clarification of my comments. He opined that I meant all lawyers with his remark, and you agree with that?

Perhaps you should also scroll up and read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I meant.

 

[Greebo]

Seems like it is:
So a friend of mine is walking in New York when he passes a Pawn Shop and sees something in the window that just catches his eyes.

In the window is a figurine of a rat.

But the figurine is amazing - the rat is made of solid gold, with finely crafted individual hairs. The eyes are rubies, the nose is Onyx, the whiskers are silver fillagree.

He's astounded, so he goes into the shop, just out of curiosity, to ask the owner about it.

"Look, I know I can never afford it but I was just wondering what you wanted for the rat statue?"
Owner: You like it? You can take it.
Friend: Quit pulling my leg - I'm just curious, no need to be a jerk.
Owner: Friend I'm absolutely serious, you can have the rat, no charge.
Friend: What's the catch???
Owner: Well there is just one catch -- don't bring it back.

So my friend jumps at the chance, and takes the rat with him and continues on his merry way. Only about a block later in his walk he starts hearing a rustling sound behind him, and when he looks back, he's being followed by a dozen or so rats.

This strikes him as wierd, (being the savvy person he is), and he starts to walk faster. The noise behind him gets louder, however, and looking back now there are about a hundred rats or so following him, and more coming.

They're coming out of alleys, and sewers, and from every direction and lining up behind him...and he's freaking out, so he starts running as fast as he can, while thousands of rats continue to stream out behind him.

Finally, panicked and out of breath, he runs to the bay, and takes the bag containing the figure of the golden rat and throws it as far as he can out into the water. Paralyzed with fear, he's stunned as the rats stream past him, and into the river, where they drown.

So my friend, who, as I said, was very savvy, went back to the pawnshop.

"Ok, I see why you didn't want me to bring it back, but I have a question for you. Do you have a gold lawyer?"

 

[grattonja]

I think the example they were trying to set is that lawyers can become judges and legislate from the bench and now we have a supreme court that is finally going to put a stop to that practice.

As that is a cut and paste, I don't think it is misquoted. You say "lawyers can become judges and legislate from the bench..." You didn't say some lawyers, you didn't say liberal lawyers, you didn't say a fringe group of lawyers with an agenda, etc. Despite STILL being a bit cloth headed today, I think your quote is fairly clear, dragging "lawyers" the group into something where, on this board at least, two of them actually agree with you. Me being one of them. "Lawyers" vs. "personal injury lawyers" for example is a huge difference in context. Lots of lawyers don't care for the "ambulance chaser" advertising some PI lawyers use.

You don't seem to like negative rep points. My suggestion here is that, if you really don't like to pick fights, choose your words more precisely. You have posted in this thread on an issue where, it seems, the group overall broadly agrees with you.

You feel you have been treated differently in the group on this board because of your conservative leanings. I suggest to you, and the recent poll of political leanings on this board would seem to support it, that politics are not really the issue. I suggest that you often use phrases that seem like they are directed at broad groups of people, not perhaps the smaller groups that you feel are responsible for whatever conduct it is that you are indicting. Narrow your phraseology before you post, and see if that doesn't help to cut the negative rep points.

I raise all this here because: A. you responded to my post and suggested I reread yours, which I did. and B. because I think anon rep points and behind the scenes stuff is not fair, and I won't do it.

I don't think you are actually trying to pick arguments with your word choices here. I just think you don't always see that you sometimes DO pick fights with your word choices. And if I thought you didn't care about it, I wouldn't post this reply. You seem like someone who wants to post on politics and have decent discussions, and your reaction to negative rep points would seem to suggest that you DO care when people react negatively.

And I'm not one of those attorneys that has a THING about lawyer jokes, or the profession either for that matter. Everyone knows you can tell the difference between a roadkill and a lawyer... there are always skid marks in front of the roadkill...

Jim G

 

[Sonar5]

As that is a cut and paste, I don't think it is misquoted. You say "lawyers can become judges and legislate from the bench..." You didn't say some lawyers, you didn't say liberal lawyers, you didn't say a fringe group of lawyers with an agenda, etc.

Very observant of you. But Guess what, I don't have to say some or all just to please you who were the one who took my words OUT of context. It is my opinion that lawyers (plural use of the word there), legislate from the bench as judges. I have no requirement to say fringe, liberal, or otherwise. It is called an opinion....

Lawyers is a use of the word in a plural fashion, so therefore meets my use of it in the context that I enclosed it in.

You however, instead of asking for a clarification, jumped right into making an assumption that was ummm wrong, IMHO, and misapplied. maybe next time ask what I meant if you don't understand the context. It might save you a couple posts.

If you think for one moment that I am going to compartmentalize my words every time a lawyer reference comes up around here, you are sadly mistaken.

Lawyers are relevant in this thread because it is a legal case brought on by lawyers who are are prone to the left liberal position in this country. It was decided in lower courts by judges who are also lawyers.

And if that bothers you that you want to come in this thread and make assumptions out of context, hey feel free, that is your choice.

But don't expect me to label every single lawyer thread into little lawyer compartments to please you. That is not going to ever happen.

Despite STILL being a bit cloth headed today, I think your quote is fairly clear, dragging "lawyers" the group into something where, on this board at least, two of them actually agree with you. Me being one of them. "Lawyers" vs. "personal injury lawyers" for example is a huge difference in context. Lots of lawyers don't care for the "ambulance chaser" advertising some PI lawyers use.

I don't give a rip how many lawyers are on here, or how many step up to brag about being one as if that makes their statements and opinions any different than mine or anyone elses.

Lawyers who become judges that legislate from the bench are a group, IMHO. So I will continue to use the word lawyers when I please as I please.

You don't seem to like negative rep points. My suggestion here is that, if you really don't like to pick fights, choose your words more precisely. You have posted in this thread on an issue where, it seems, the group overall broadly agrees with you.

WRONG.... Another false assumption on your part, In my opinion. I said I thought they were funny. I NEVER said I don't seem to like negative rep points. You keep making assumptions without asking for context.

You feel you have been treated differently in the group on this board because of your conservative leanings. I suggest to you, and the recent poll of political leanings on this board would seem to support it, that politics are not really the issue. I suggest that you often use phrases that seem like they are directed at broad groups of people, not perhaps the smaller groups that you feel are responsible for whatever conduct it is that you are indicting. Narrow your phraseology before you post, and see if that doesn't help to cut the negative rep points.

Nope, I never said I feel I have been treated differently in the group on this board because of my leanings or otherwise. Please point out where I said that. You are inccorrect yet again in your assumption. You must mean sopmeone else here. As to your suggestion about how I post. I'll take that under advisement.....

Ok done. No thanks, I'll keep posting how I desire to post. I appreciate the suggestion however.

I raise all this here because: A. you responded to my post and suggested I reread yours, which I did. and B. because I think anon rep points and behind the scenes stuff is not fair, and I won't do it.

I asked you to read it again, because you took my post out of context and made assumtions that were incorrect, IMHO. You read into it what you thought I meant instead of asking what I meant. You assumed I meant all, wrote all, and that was incorrect as I never said all.

And I don't really care one way or the other about rep points. If someone wants to give me neg rep points, fine by me, but I also have a choice and I will post them in the thread because I think they are funny. I have not left any points, pos or neg since if I have something to say I will write in in the thread. I may in the future, though, who knows. But I have no problem with the feature as the owners desire to allow that, and that is their choice.

I don't think you are actually trying to pick arguments with your word choices here. I just think you don't always see that you sometimes DO pick fights with your word choices. And if I thought you didn't care about it, I wouldn't post this reply. You seem like someone who wants to post on politics and have decent discussions, and your reaction to negative rep points would seem to suggest that you DO care when people react negatively.

I don't pick fights with my word choices, others take them out of context and spin them to their own agenda's, IMHO. And when they do that, I will correct them when I see it as I did here with you. When I screw up, I apologize and ask for context. I already did that in another thread here.

And I'm not one of those attorneys that has a THING about lawyer jokes, or the profession either for that matter. Everyone knows you can tell the difference between a roadkill and a lawyer... there are always skid marks in front of the roadkill...

Well, you are the one who wants me to know you are an attorney, IMHO, as you keep bringing it up. I really don't care what you choose to do in your personal life. If you're happy being a lawyer good for you.

I till feel this is a good ruling sending a message to judges, and lawyers who bring these cases to court, that legislating from the bench will get you reversed, IMHO.

Anyway, thanks for the response, and have a nice Wednesday.

Regards,
Joe

PS - Lawyer Joke....

Q - "How do you know there is a lawyer in the room?"
A - "They Tell You"

Can also be applied to Doctors, people that went to Notre Dame, (domers), and others with big ego's...

 

[Sonar5]

Got another funny one.....

Here is another funny one I just got....

You're quite an insecure individual, aren't you.

Actually I am very secure in both my views and who I am, but thanks for asking.

I especially like how the positive ones are signed, yet the negative ones are not. bwahahahaha... These are too funny... More.. More.....

So let's see now, this person says I am an insecure individual yet they don't sign their little comment to me. And I'm insecure? Somehow I see a disconnect there.... Ironic huh?

See, now that is funny..... Thanks for the chuckle whomever he/she is.