THE MAN said:
:icon_lol:
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Supreme Court Allows Military Recruiters on Campus
- Thread starter DanMa1156
- Start date
:icon_lol:
I bet half these people view the Clintons, especially Hillary, as their savior... and oh my god, who instituted Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Bill Clinton. People like this are the most ignorant of how the nation and military runs. Pay them no attention, they're trash.
esday1
He'll dazzle you with terms like "Code Red."
I think that this sort of thing really is a bigger issue than just how easy it is to recruit JAGs, or a few college students or faculty saying stupid things. It's easy to ignore what a few idiots on the fringe say, but keeping the military off of campuses has an impact that goes way beyond that handful of idiots. Generally speaking, having too much separation between the armed forces and the institutions that educate most of this country's decision-making elite is a bad thing for both sides, particularly when that separation is characterized by mutual ignorance. Someone on this board has a pretty good quote as their signature... "the nation that separates its soldiers and its scholars will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
What bugs me about the AALS policy was how cavalierly the schools argued that they were just applying the "same standards" to any employer, without any recognition whatsoever of the fundamental importance of the military. If Akin Gump LLP weren't able to recruit on the top campuses because of some discriminatory policy of theirs and they went belly-up as a result, I doubt that would really matter much in the grand scheme of things. However, the armed forces (even if you accept strictly for the purpose of argument that the DADT policy is flawed) play a fundamental constitutional role that no corporate law firm ever will.
FlyNavy- I'd be happy to take that bet. Most of the far-lefties that I knew in college (at least the ones that would actually go out and protest the cause of the day) either voted for Nader in 2000 or saw voting for Gore as some sort of regrettable necessity. I doubt very much that many of them would see a DLC Democrat like either of the Clintons as a "savior." Also, even if that were true, that wouldn't be particularly ironic, given that DADT was a compromise after Clinton tried to eliminate the prohibition on gays in the military completely, and one would assume that someone opposed to DADT would have been even more strongly opposed to the pre-DADT ban.
FYI, "One Bullet Away" has some interesting discussion of this general issue, although not about the law school recruiting specifically (Fick is a Dartmouth grad).
What bugs me about the AALS policy was how cavalierly the schools argued that they were just applying the "same standards" to any employer, without any recognition whatsoever of the fundamental importance of the military. If Akin Gump LLP weren't able to recruit on the top campuses because of some discriminatory policy of theirs and they went belly-up as a result, I doubt that would really matter much in the grand scheme of things. However, the armed forces (even if you accept strictly for the purpose of argument that the DADT policy is flawed) play a fundamental constitutional role that no corporate law firm ever will.
FlyNavy- I'd be happy to take that bet. Most of the far-lefties that I knew in college (at least the ones that would actually go out and protest the cause of the day) either voted for Nader in 2000 or saw voting for Gore as some sort of regrettable necessity. I doubt very much that many of them would see a DLC Democrat like either of the Clintons as a "savior." Also, even if that were true, that wouldn't be particularly ironic, given that DADT was a compromise after Clinton tried to eliminate the prohibition on gays in the military completely, and one would assume that someone opposed to DADT would have been even more strongly opposed to the pre-DADT ban.
FYI, "One Bullet Away" has some interesting discussion of this general issue, although not about the law school recruiting specifically (Fick is a Dartmouth grad).
esday1
He'll dazzle you with terms like "Code Red."
One other thing... this amicus brief by the UCLaw Veterans Society is worth reading for the explanation of why this case is significant:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/documents/AmicusUCLAWVets24Feb04.pdf
And here's what Brig. Gen. Gaskin (CG of recruiting command) has to say about it:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/documents/GaskinDeclMarine.pdf
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/documents/AmicusUCLAWVets24Feb04.pdf
And here's what Brig. Gen. Gaskin (CG of recruiting command) has to say about it:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/documents/GaskinDeclMarine.pdf
esday1 said:
Esday, I like to consider myself a relatively learned individual. Every once in a while, however, I am presented with a gem, and have to seek Mr. Webster's clarification (Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, for all who care...)
Very well done
amicus curiae: n, pl one (as a professional person or organization) that is not party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly affects the case in question
^ "Now, I don't know what any of that means, but it sounds pretty bad."
(Watch - I probably have the wrong definition or something...)
Cate
Pretty much invincible
Basically, an amicus brief is what happens when someone who isn't actually a party to the case knows what they're talking about (or thinks they do), feels that the outcome of the case will have a significant effect on them, and wants to share the knowledge. In this case, the UCLaw Veterans Society is neither suing nor being sued, but they figure they have a valid contribution to make about the value of military recruitment on college campuses, so they filed a brief to say, "I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but..."
It's an "amicus" brief because they're acting as a "friend of the court."
It's an "amicus" brief because they're acting as a "friend of the court."
revan1986
Pro Rec SWO
I know the type. They probably think they will be working for a big law firm making 200k per year even though these spots are non-existent nowadays. If these kids had any brains they'd be begging for the JAG's to come, they will probably be the only employers at OCI this fall.
Never had much of a problem with this at The Citadel, either
Makes you wonder if the Academy has to deal with this...
...3 1/2 years later. Been thinking about this response for awhile huh?
Wow, this might be the new record.
Back off him. He's pro-rec for SWO. That CBDR surface contact has been working an intercept on him for an hour now. In the meantime he's made a sandwich and gone to the can.