Law schools vs. military recruiters

Pajamas Media blogged The Scotus blog examines the possible arguments in Rumsfeld et al. v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) over the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. The ACS Blog has a massive roundup of the summaries of briefs filed in connection with the case. The Law Dork takes note of the ironies in the amicus briefs regarding who is supporting which side of the argument. Virginia Law Democrats says "the WSJ op-ed page (which is itself reliably Orwelllian) has thrown its negligible credibility behind the government's efforts to blackmail law schools

Blackmail is when you threaten to reveal something about someone. All the Solomon ammendment says is that if they don't let Military Recruiters on campus, they don't get federal funds. Which seems quite reasonable to me.

(universities, really, but more on that later) into violating their anti-discrimination policies." Financial Methods simply says: "Law Schools Fight Clinton-era Law". Law Professor Peter Berkowitz argues that law schools which disapprove of military recruitment standards should have the principles to reject Federal funds.

And all the Solomon ammendment does is restrict the funds whether they have the principles to reject them or not.

Come Tuesday the Right Side of the Rainbow will have a link to the audio tapes of the arguments. Meanwhile, in action outside the courtroom the Counter Recruiter is announcing that Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn, Dahr Jamail

I don't know who the other two are, but hasn't Cindy's 15 minutes of fame expired a long time ago

and a host of others plan to protest at a military recruitment station as the case is being heard.