Yes, but these are the kinds of laws that Republicans once tended to oppose as interfering with states' rights or imposing indirect mandates. Republicans in the past resented federal setting of speed limits or blood alcohol driving limits by the threat of withholding highway monies. It seems to me that modern Republicans are just as prone as Democrats to use the power of the federal government to get what they want, the only difference being in what their pet issues are.

While on the surface you seem correct, Joel, I think there is more to the issue. You are equating federalizing speed limits (something that has been undone) with recruitment into our national army.

In other words, it doesn't make much sense to force Nebraska to adopt Maine's speed limits and drinking age, from a Constitutional point of view. I think it makes a whole lot more sense to force Nebraska (or Nebraska State) to have the same policy as Maine with reguard to recruiting our national army.

After all, if the federal goverment doesn't have the power to enforce recruitment of such an army, then what is the point of having a central goverment at all?

Since most high schoolers with a Civics class could raise this argument against the law school's arguments, I find it laughable that this case even made it to the Supreme Court.

If the federal government wants to enforce recruitment, perhaps it should adopt a draft. As is, the services are volunteer, so I don't see that a private institution should be indirectly forced to participate in policies that it regards, as per other employers, as blatant discrimination. (I'm also opposed to the federal, state or local government forcing private hospitals -- those that accept government assistance -- to perform abortions where such abortions violate the tenets of the sponsoring organization's faith.)

Besides, Republicans also, overall, heartily endorsed imposing federal mandates on state/local public schools -- a position almost unimaginable to me 20 years ago. So, my overall point remains that Republicans are as inclined to use federal power as Democrats are, even if my point in this example is relatively weak by comparison.

Further, it is not as if the government is shut off from other recruiting opportunities.

Since most high schoolers with a Civics class could raise this argument against the law school's arguments, I find it laughable that this case even made it to the Supreme Court.

One, I think you vastly overestimate the abilty of high schoolers with their (in Indiana) 12th grade government class.

Two, while you make a facially valid point, you completely miss the issue. It may be perfectly sensible for the federal government to handle recruitment into the national army in the same way in all fifty states, but the real policy issue here is whether it's proper that the federal government discriminates against gays in recruitment, not that it should be allowed to discriminate against gays in all fifty states.

A ruling in favor of the law schools would have implicitly been a ruling against the whole concept of "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" (it would have meant that the policy was actually discriminatory in a bad way), and while that might well be a good thing, apparently the Supreme Court wasn't putting its hand in that blender.

Gays in the military is just the window dressing. The real issue is can you have your cake and eat it too. The answer was no.

Nick, couldn't the Court have agreed with the law schools that the Solomon Amendment violated two of their first amendment rights without agreeing that their anti-discrimination policies, or the way they enforce them, are appropriate? It would have made the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy more of a burden on the military, but presumably, law schools (and other kinds of schools) would then have been able to treat military recruiters differently over other First Amendment protected disagreements, and not just "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Though such a conclusion would have made the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy more of a burden than it is now, I think that if the Court had sided with the law schools, its conclusion would have been that the schools' policy was protected by the First Amendment, and not that the Court actually agrees that the military's policy is "bad."