If you are going to make a legalistic argument, then you should know what you are talking about.

The government can only make distinctions based on gender if the law serves an important state interest and that the law is substantially related to that interest. Medved, you really should read U.S. v. Virginia, which involved the exclusion of women from VMI.

If you were making the legal argument against gay marriage you would lose because while gender is considered a quasi-supsect category, sexual orientation is not.

Oh, you also forget the due process argument too which was instrumental in striking down anti-miscegenation laws.

This is why conservatives should stay away from legal arguments, they are clueless.

The matter is not funding an organization with which you do not believe. It is being barred from an organization with which you are funding.

You can join an organization with which you do not agree. It is being forced to fund something to which you are not even allowed a voice is the problem.

Could you imagine if an anti-Christian student organization formed and barred Christians from joining the group but then forced them to pay for it? Do you think Hicks would support that.

Finally, when I was in college, I joined the black student organization (even though I am white). In law school, I was part of the Federalist Society and the ACLU. What is more important to me is that I can join an organization that I am...

Why should students fund an organization which they would not be allowed to join.

This is not about whether students oppose to a particular groups message - it is whether students should be forced to fund a group he or she cannot join, not may or may not join.

And this entire concept of infiltration is ridiculous. We had pro-life and pro-choice organizations on our campus and no one infilitrated the other group. The same went for College Democrats and College Republicans.

Why can't the CLS open itself to all students if it expects funding from the students? By the way, it is a losing case.

Just in case Ms. Lukas did not know, the FDA does not conduct its own studies on drugs and the like. The companies themselves do it and then present their findings to the FDA and its peers for critiques.

So, if someone is getting the sceince wrong, it is the corporations, not the FDA.

I am tired of people complaining about cutting spending and not saying what they will cut. We know where the vast amount of money goes - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Military/National Security.
Why can't Paulson and others say that we need to cut these programs?
Yes, it is not politically expediate to say so, but then people are surprised when neither party refuses to cut such programs.
Conservatives need to come correct and give people the harsh reality of what needs to be done and stop paying lip service to values they do not put into practice once in power.

Michelle Malkin is quick to note the self-identified limitations of the study but then makes the opposite conclusion. The study's authors themselves that their limitations probably led them to under-estimate those who have died because of lack of health insurance.

Does Michelle even know what dilute means. Instead of listening to her, I challenge people to read the study for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

If the figure really was flawed, how is it that Ms. Malkin took a month to figure it out, and she is the only one. I mean, it is only an 8 page report. Common sense please.

I don't even know why people try to engage in conversation on these boards when people are so quick to micharacterize your points and just make stuff up.

My point about Poplawski was that Malkin only focused on a certain segment of our society that distrusts and targets law enforcement - radical blacks, and did so to stir up racial aniums. There is also such distrust among the far right and white militias.

I was not defending Clemmons (and I challenge the person who said I did to prove it).

Malkin is giving the opportunity for some to make racist and ill-informed remarks which and claim cover. And of course, as expected, some jumped on it in here.

All I questioned is why she focused exclusively on black...

Malkin conveniently ignores the case of Poplawski who killed three police officers in Pittsburgh this year because he feared they were going to take his guns.

Why would she skip this? Could it be the Poplawski is from the right wing? Or, which is more likely because he is white and Malkin just used the tragedy in Washington state to make it a smear against black and black radicalism. Disgusting.

Look, if you want to make a general statement that non-discrimination laws (not matter for what - race, gender, religion) that is fine.

What is dangerous is the reasoning that the "free exercise of religion" is a pass to act as you see fit just because you claim your religion says so. If that is what you support, you are basically arguing that one's religious beliefs is superior to that law. How would you apply that? What if I claimed that, under my religious beliefs, black people are evil (have the mark of Cain) and must be subservient. Should I be punished.

"Free Exercise of Religion" does not mean you can use the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah as a shield to avoid generally applicable laws.

That is the...

Matt has absolutely no respect for our Constitution and is advocating nothing less than a theocracy. If anytime any individual claims that a particular law violates their religious beliefs they need not follow the law, then we will have nothing but lawlessness.

So, I guess under Barber's reasoning, it is ago for a radical Muslim to kill an apostate - it is their religion.

Remember the words of Justice Scalia: "unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs" Maybe Barber and others should have more respect for our Constituion and rule of law.