My Speech, Good; Your Speech, Bad
.
Lively discussion on Rumsfeld v. FAIR over at Althouse. It all takes place in the comments. (FWIW, I agree with Ann).
Good description of the issue and oral arguments at SCOTUSblog. Briefly, the question is whether a law school that receives federal funds can ban military recruiters from campus because the military's don't ask, don't tell policy violates the law school's anti-discrimination policies.
Some of the comments at Althouse object to the motives of the authors and supporters of the law (requiring campuses that receive federal funds to allow recruiters on campus); and the commenters argue the law should be overturned on that basis. The motives are irrelevant. Either it's a constitutional law or it's not. If the only laws that could be enforced are those that are passed by nice people with good motives, we would have far fewer laws (oh, and that would be a bad thing, how?).
Since when did it become a liberal value to suppress ideas? Worse yet, to allow--no demand--the courts to support the suppression of ideas. The answer is, it's not a liberal value. But it does seem to be the value of those who have hi-jacked liberalism. I want my liberalism back!!
Lively discussion on Rumsfeld v. FAIR over at Althouse. It all takes place in the comments. (FWIW, I agree with Ann).
Good description of the issue and oral arguments at SCOTUSblog. Briefly, the question is whether a law school that receives federal funds can ban military recruiters from campus because the military's don't ask, don't tell policy violates the law school's anti-discrimination policies.
Some of the comments at Althouse object to the motives of the authors and supporters of the law (requiring campuses that receive federal funds to allow recruiters on campus); and the commenters argue the law should be overturned on that basis. The motives are irrelevant. Either it's a constitutional law or it's not. If the only laws that could be enforced are those that are passed by nice people with good motives, we would have far fewer laws (oh, and that would be a bad thing, how?).
Since when did it become a liberal value to suppress ideas? Worse yet, to allow--no demand--the courts to support the suppression of ideas. The answer is, it's not a liberal value. But it does seem to be the value of those who have hi-jacked liberalism. I want my liberalism back!!
<< Home