Finally, good to see that these left wing liberals who sit on the high moral high horse come back down to Earth. That 400$ million walks the walk, and all the cry babies about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy can continue to cry. Not to poke a stick at anyone...but honestly how many homosexuals are wanting to join the military any how? Not that they do not have a right to join. I believe anyone willing to serve in the military should, and deserves our respect. But if you know the atomsphere of anti-homosexuality why submit yourself to it? Its like walking past 40th after midnight with a Prada bag and diamond laden Rolex...your gonna get hurt. CommonSense, Marketing DFW

This case should be a slam dunk. Government, under its spending power, is allowed to put any reasonable restrictions it wants on that spending. There is nothing unreasonable about requiring schools to simply allow military recruiters onto school grounds. Further, this isn't about free speech. Barring or permitting a recruiter onto campus isn't speech- that's an action. Nobody's saying these law schools can't put up signs or demonstrate or anything like that. Finally, who is this mindless demonstration of not allowing military recruiters helping? Law schools have a duty to help students get jobs. By barring recruiters, that is a whole avenue of jobs, in an ever decreasing legal job market, that are unavailable to students. Its just another mindless ploy in our culture war, and the uber-agressive homosexual agenda. I hope our new Roberts Court puts these loons in their place. Roman, Nova law philly

CommonSense disavows common knowledge -- You state "Not that they do not have a right to join." Perhaps you mean not that they SHOULD not have a right to join, because an openly gay citizen does NOT have the right to join the army. In practice, there are many gay soldiers, including a personal friend of mine. From what I gather, most in his platoon are aware of his sexuality and don't care -- but if his case were to be referred, he would be barred from service. The fact is that the army, and his platoon, needs him a heck of lot of more than he needs them, and that's why his "secret" is safe for now. The Solomon amendment forces universities to violate their own discrimination policies. If Merrill Lynch refused to hire women or gays or blacks, they would be prohibited from having a presence at many university sponsored job-fairs, and rightly so. The simplest solution to this so-called controversy would be for the army simply to stop discriminating... end of story. As much as the right-wing shills want to make this a case about liberals hating the military (despite the chicken-hawk status of most leading conservatives in today's gov't), this is not. I, for one, would gladly support the Army's right to recruit at open university job fairs -- provided they adhere to the same standards and practices that all of the recruiting organizations (public and private) are also held to. I am a proud liberal, and proud of my family and friends who are risking their lives to make the world a better place, both the Democrats and Republicans among them. This does not mean that I, or even many of those serving, cannot criticize a war, disagree with a policy, or expect our government to hold itself to the same level of non-discrimination standards that most of the developed world has embraced. NYC Alumn '02

Roman u should prob note the test for the constitutionality of congress' spending power... that is... it can not use those powers to coerce such action deemed contrary to the constitution gtown law, 1L dc

Nobody's saying you can't disagree with the war or with the government's "don't ask, dont tell policy". Nobody's saying law schools can't either. If they want to hold the government up to their stricter anti-discrimination standards, then they sure can. But when doing so, if they prevent the army from putting recruiters in the law schools, then the government may similarly respond. By not giving the law school money. Why would the government give law school money, which it is not required to do, if a law school wants to prevent one of the government's arms from recruiting employees? Is the government supposed to be left toothless? Is it supposed to be required to give out handouts to every one and place no qualifications on those handouts? No. As I said before, the Government has a right to place conditions on its spending power. Roman, Nova law Philly

Gtown law: And what part of the constitution is Congress trying to coerce violation of? Roman, Nova law philly

Roman, no one is seeking to actively bar military recruiters from campus...but what law schools do is that they assist employers in setting up meetings with students, some put them up in hotels, etc. Military recruiters would still be allowed to recruit students, just without direct assistance from the law schools. Gtown law is saying that law schools have anti-discriminatory policies in place that govern their relationships with the recruiters on campus. By threatening to withold money--not just from the law school but from the ENTIRE UNIVERSITY--the Department of Defense is essentially coercing the law schools to help the recruiters directly. In forcing the law schools to do this, the Department of Defense is forcing them to violate their own anti-discrimination policies and views on equality...that is where the First Amendment issue enters the picture. And it is not a matter of a quid pro quo, with federal dollars as an incentive, because private universities have been receiving federal funding for many years. The Solomon Amendment of 1996 allows the government to threaten witholdingof money as a punishment, something which, as gtown law points out, they do not have the right to do. This is certainly not, as you say, "another mindless ploy in the culture was," but a legitimate debate over the rights of private institutions to practice their own policies. Penn '09