Tuesday, March 14, 2006

 

A Decision And An Indictment

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff explains how so many legal minds got Rumsfeld v. FAIR so wrong. Hint: The law professors believed their ideology would trump the facts of law in the Supreme Court, which unanimously disagreed.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his associates (excluding Alito, who did not rule) unanimously swatted ideology aside to make way for the Constitution:
Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. . . . Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.

The ruling is a significant rebuke to academy's so-called legal progressives, whose judgement and scholarship have been evaluated, by a Supreme Court now operating in the Real World, and have been found badly wanting.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?