The Washington Times - October 20, 2009, 10:11PM

President Barack Obama has nominated Georgetown University law professor, Chai R. Feldblum, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Council. Dr. Feldbaum, a lesbian activist attorney, has also been a staffer at the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade.

Unlike Mr. Obama’s recent Czar appointments, Dr. Feldblum must face Senate confirmation hearings prior to assuming her job as commissioner at EEOC.  However, her past controversial statements and actions may very well catch up to her. As commissioner of the EEOC, Dr. Feldblum would be responsible for enforcing employment discrimination laws. 

SEE RELATED:


In 2006, Dr. Feldblum demonstrated how far out of whack are her priorities. In 2006, the Supreme Court voted unanimously that colleges must allow military recruiters the same access to students as other employers on their campuses if the schools wanted to receive federal funds.

The court rejected a free speech challenge from law schools who claimed they should not be forced to associate with the recruiters. According to National Public Radio, Dr. Feldblum not only was part of  the law school group that challenged the federal government on this case but was also a founder. Harold Koh, a controversial Obama appointee to the State Department, was part of Dr. Feldblum’s lawsuit as the Dean of Yale Law School. 

A recent Washington Times Editorial illustrates why Dr. Koh is considered to be a radical within the Obama administration:

Harold Koh: Barely approved to be the chief legal counsel for the State Department, Mr. Koh is an advocate of the dangerous notion of “transnationalism,” which would elevate foreign law above the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Koh has endorsed a “global regulatory” regime to outlaw firearms.

While Dr. Feldblum’s and Dr. Koh’s law school group unsuccessfully sued the government over the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay individuals from serving in the U.S. military, their appointments in time of international conflict are unsettling. Whether Mr. Obama likes it or not, he is a wartime president.

How will the appointment of individuals who already tried to undermine the military help the country, as we face further international threats?

Dr. Feldblum and Dr. Koh commented on losing the 2006 Supreme Court case in the NPR audio segment and transcript below. (bolding in transcript is mine)

 

MICHELE NORRIS, host:

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I’m Michele Norris.

MELISSA BLOCK, host: And I’m Melissa Block. The Supreme Court ruled today in a case involving military recruiters on college campuses. In a unanimous decision, the justices upheld a federal law that says recruiters must be allowed on campus and given the same access to students as other employers. If not, the entire university will lose its federal funding. NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG reporting: The court’s decision centered on the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy and how it conflicts with university nondiscrimination policies, in particular, law school policies. For nearly three decades, most law schools have required that all recruiters seeking to use the school’s career services facilities pledge in writing that they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

In 1994, Congress passed a law cutting off Defense Department funding to any school that restricted military recruitment. Most schools then allowed military recruiters onto the campus, but restricted the school’s own administrative support services, refusing to send students emails and flyers advertising the presence of military recruiters.

Then came the Bush administration and 9/11. The schools were told they would lose all federal funding, university-wide, if the law schools did not provide exactly the same administrative services to the military that they provided to other recruiters. Some schools went to court, claiming that the government was interfering with their right to express their opposition to the military recruitment and don’t ask, don’t tell.

But today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that providing administrative services to facilitate military recruitment is not speech, but conduct. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the federal law enacted by Congress leaves schools free to express whatever views they may have on don’t ask, don’t tell or the mandated campus access for recruiters. The school can put signs on the bulletin board, next to the door of the recruitment rooms. They can help organize student protests. But they have to provide equal access to military recruiters. Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum is one of the founders of the group that lost in the Supreme Court today.

Dr. CHAI FELDBLUM (Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law School): I read this opinion as a call to arms. The Supreme Court said, if you don’t like the speech of the military, counter it with your own speech.

TOTENBERG: Harold Koh is dean of Yale Law School.

Dr. HAROLD H. KOH (Dean, Yale University Law School): I think it’s very clear that they’re inviting us to engage in more speech, not less. And that sounds to me like an invitation for law schools to speak.

TOTENBERG: Carl Monk, director of the Association of American Law Schools, said today’s ruling, however, puts law schools in a tough spot.

Dr. CARL MONK (Executive Director, Association of American Law Schools): This decision forces law schools to the Hobson’s choice of either having to lose millions of dollars in government funding or being required to assist an employer who discriminates.

TOTENBERG: In fact, however, all but a few small, independent law schools have already caved in to the government on this question, because they simply cannot afford to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Now what they have to do to comply is clear. Former deputy secretary of the Army, Joe Reeder, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of himself and a lot of retired top military brass, said today he thought it was particularly important that the decision was unanimous.

Mr. JOE R. REEDER (Former Undersecretary of the Army): I think it has a lot more wallop when it’s unanimous. I think on rudimentary issues, fundamental issues, it’s very important.

TOTENBERG: As for the legal rationale of today’s ruling, Chief Justice Roberts said that sending informational emails and flyers out to students is plainly incidental to accommodating the military on campus. It’s a far cry, he said, from compelled speech, like requiring students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor, he said, is this expressive speech, like burning a flag. Moreover, he said, Congress could’ve gone further. Because the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies, Congress could’ve simply ordered military recruitment on campus.

Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.