Indeed. But would you not agree, Bricker, that differential treatment of homosexuals has to be justified by rational basis review at the very least? And, that Romer, a case concerned with the prevention of sexual orientation being added as a protected group, is somewhat relevant here? And that in Romer the Supreme Court (with a similar make up to that of the Court today) held that the discriminatory actions did not pass rational basis review because they were motivated by nothing more than animus towards the group concerned?
Given that, don’t you see how it might be at least tangentially relevant that the Commonwealth has permitted universities discretion in this arena as regards to other groups, but only withdraws that discretion when homosexuals are concerned? That this might be an indication of the motivation being animus towards homosexuals?
I think you are mistaken, Diogenes - nobody is supposing that it would be permissible to harass. To the extent that greater punishments kick in when that harassment takes a discriminatory or bigoted tone - that may not be permitted in this instance since the state does not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class.
I have very little knowledge of local government law other than what I recall from studying for the bar so I’d love to hear from someone a little more versed than me in these issues.
Does Dillon’s Rule apply to someone other than local goverments or municipal corporations? I’ve seen references to local governments and I’ve seen references to municipal corporations, however, I haven’t seen any references to Dillon’s Rule applying to universities.
However, even if it does, did the statutes setting up and regulating the universities give them the authority to regulate such behavior. Ultimately I think that this will be left to the Virginia Supreme Court to decide. I also suspect that they will look for an opportunity to punt this decision like they did in Arlington v. White.
In the Prince William County case I mentioned earlier, local governments have a similar grant of authority. Va Code § 46.2-1300 et seq provides that local governments may adopt traffic ordinances and may “… repeal, amend, or modify such ordinances and may erect appropriate signs or markers on the highway showing the general regulations applicable to the operation of vehicles on such highways.”
Yes despite that wide grant of authority, the law in Virgina is that they may NOT add “parking” to the state law’s prohibition about operating with an expired state inspection tag.
Some discussion of the Rule:
I have no idea, since the AG did not focus on that factor in his letter. Is there some other factor in Virginia law that authorizes veterans’ status?
Fascinating. But it’s a question that we in Virginia have settled since the 19th century.
If UVA wanted to make it a more punishable offense to harrass left-handed students, in view of their decided minority amongst the population, this same rule would forbid it.
That would not then mean that it was open season on lefties.
Your reading of Cucinelli remains unsubstantiated by the plain language (cough textualistcough), and flies in the face of the very cases you use to defend it (the other cases didn’t just deal with student discipline, but with the entirety of the anti-discrimination policies). You put a false reading into the letter (one that not a single other person, even Cooch himself has advocated) and now are trying to dodge and weave your way around it. His letter dealt with the entirety of the universities’ anti-discrimination policies, not just in relation to the students discipline, but also hiring and tenure policies. You’re wrong.
From the beginning, I read this as a statement on student discipline issues. There’s no question that this view is in the minority, given the reactions of everyone around.
I contend it’s correct, as to the issue of student disciplinary policies.
That’s the extent of my claim.
THAT is not wrong. (That is, I may well be wrong about what was meant; I am NOT wrong about saying that’s what I thought. I was there the whole time - I know what I thought).
Only Bricker is perceived as treading tippy-toe to the trolling boundary. I don’t believe he’s trolling, personally. I do believe he’s performing his customary blind-respect-for-the-law-as-written-and-interpreted-by-a-sufferer-of-OCD schtick, which I also believe is sincere. It’s incredibly irritating and makes him look like an android who doesn’t possess a functioning conscience, but it’s sincere.
What you thought (that Cucinelli’s letter dealt only with student disciplinary policies) was so outside of a textualist reading of the letter, so far off from how everybody else in the entire State of Virginia (excepting villa :)) read the letter, and so unsupported by the cases, that I presupposed that you wouldn’t be so incredibly wrong. I should have said that, as a textualist, you SHOULD have recognized how far off your reading was, rather than potentially ascribing an illicit motive.
But to move the debate on beyond whether the letter applies only to student discipline, can we agree that both sides of the issue (whether or not the Universities have the power to enact and/or follow anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation policies) is a debateable position with tenable arguments on both sides?
Bricker, I still think that the Prince William case is distinguishable on the basis that it applies to the municipal governments in relation to the states. I did a half assed search and didn’t see any cases not involving either a City or a County with respect to Dillon’s Rule.
Regardless, I don’t think that the issue is black and white. The AG’s opinion is just an opinion. At best, it is persuasive authority, but it isn’t binding. Until this gets in front of a Circuit Court judge and then the Virginia Supreme Court, it won’t be any thing other than a legal opinion.
I agree with both points. Clearly the AG cannot create controlling caselaw, and clearly there is no case on point one way or the other with respect to universities.
What I started this thread to say, though, was the rebuttal like yours is very appropriate, and rebuttal like the Post’s not so much.
Repeat after me: The fact that I posted something with the purpose and intention of drawing hostile responses does mean it’s trolling. The fact that I posted something with the purpose and intention of drawing hostile responses does mean it’s trolling. The fact that I posted something with the purpose and intention of drawing hostile responses does mean it’s trolling…
And in turn, I am astounded at the legions of people who seem to think to themselves, “Bugger what the law says; my conscience will be my guide!”
If you’re a legislator, that’s great: write the new laws with your conscience as your guide. As a enforcer or interpreter of the law, though, your job is to effect the consciences of those legislators, not your own.
Dillon’s rule aside, it pretty much is a slam dunk that state universities are owned by the state - their independence is circumscribed in important ways everywhere.