If "public opinion" is allegedly with the progressives, then voters can express that view in November.
Supreme Court checking all the Christian boxes..
- Thread starter El OchoCinco
- Start date
If "public opinion" is allegedly with the progressives, then voters can express that view in November.
If "public opinion" is allegedly with the progressives, then voters can express that view in November.
In their gerrymandered districts that in no way represent their portion of the population in many states.
Stevens is the founder of the Mount Jab Church of Mars and has asked to lead a Satanic prayer at the 50 yard line, the same way coach Kennedy was allowed to lead an Evangelical Christian prayer as backed by the Supreme Court.
Stevens asked to pray after the game, when people are free to leave, check phones, etc... unlike Coach Kennedy's deliberate spectacle to make certain everyone was part of a captive audience.
Stevens asked to pray after the game, when people are free to leave, check phones, etc... unlike Coach Kennedy's deliberate spectacle to make certain everyone was part of a captive audience.
"CRT: Parents fighting back" amirite?
Ocho, did you even follow the CARSON, v. MAKIN decision to add to your thread?
Carson case is tough based on initial reading. Maine already was saying they would pay for you to go to a private school if you have no school in your district, it would be hard to exclude religious schools from that if you already allow private schools. Maine fucked this up because they were ok with public assistance to private schools so they opened the door.
How can you say taxpayer funding can go to fun private schools but not private religious schools simply because they are religious. Religious schools must meet state education requirements just like private schools do. If you are already going to fund the choice in this specific fact set it seems arbitrary to decline religious schools that have to meet the same state requirements.
The problem with this case is fucktards never read the case and make the case into an issue that has nothing to do with the fact pattern. The court is not saying taxpayer money should go to religious schools and we are tearing down separation of church and state. the court said if Maine has a program to fund tuition to private schools you cannot exclude religious schools simply because they are religious even if they meet state education requirements.
Maine opened the door, once you do that you cannot be arbitrary and exclusioanry.
here is the summary ruling:
Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
However 95% of the people here and in this country will misstate the holding and use it for their fucktard political agenda. Most people have no idea how to read a SC opinion.
I'd argue private schools can remain secular w/o ostracizing non-believers/followers of a religion. But yes, public money into private education is why it should never been allowed as is how we end up here.
Including quite a few who are actually on the Supreme Court, although we may disagree in regard to which ones.
True but someone choosing to go to a religious school has little fear of being ostracized. No one is being forced to a specific school. If they feel the school is too rigid in forcing the religion they would leave or not have chosen it.
Maine opened the door and now every state is going to have to deal with this bullshit. Not sure why taxpayer money should ever go to private schools. Maine tried to deal with a situation where there was NO public school option and tried to rectify it but muddled it.
But mark my words... the GOP and Dems with their limited capcity to read case law will go to the media and run with this haha.
Including quite a few who are actually on the Supreme Court, although we may disagree in regard to which ones.
Well it would be wrong to think any justice is infallable or free from personal bias in prejudging a case before hearing the facts. In Con Law you spend weeks over cases with quite handicapped subjective legal analysis. SC appointee hearings prove this has never stopped and Clarence Thomas is taking it to new heights of absurdity. I would take any other conservative justice over him.