SCOTUS strikes down ME law that gives tuition assitance for private but not religious schools

[WV222]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539254884670877696?s=20&t=M1k0YGk6cXX...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm fine with this because it shouldn't be giving money to ANY private schools. Private schools should be banned from receiving any type of public funding.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So now any such program must provide taxpayer money for religious instruction? This court hollows out the Establishment Clause with every new decision.

[SnowLabrador]

The Supreme Court is illegitimate and must be abolished.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On a side note regardless of what you think of the decision, this sort of take is not some sort of own and just makes you look stupid.

https://twitter.com/Tbirrdheflin/status/1539255949990449152
https://twitter.com/AnyFishAnyTime/status/1539255795359129605
https://twitter.com/SirDanielJ/status/1539256448181575681
https://twitter.com/EyeAmThatGuy/status/1539256533300789252

The answer is yes, the decision applies to them too. Your point?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So now any such program must provide taxpayer money for religious instruction? This court hollows out the Establishment Clause with every new decision.

Or such programs could simply not exist and we could stop wasting money by giving them to private schools. Give that money to public schools instead and the private schools don't get a dime.

[Horus]

Disgusting decision.

[jojoju1998]

Why was there a program funding private schools to begin with ? At all ?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Why was there a program funding private schools to begin with ? At all ?

Because they wanted to brag about their bursaries without actually funding them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Disgusting decision.

Not really. The program was a f[inks]ing abomination for funding any type of private schools at all. This will put an end to this practice entirely, no price school should ever receive any public funds under any circumstances whatsoever. I'd even support banning Pell Grants to private colleges.

[Horus]

Disgusting decision.

Not really. The program was a f[inks]ing abomination for funding any type of private schools at all. This will put an end to this practice entirely, no price school should ever receive any public funds under any circumstances whatsoever. I'd even support banning Pell Grants to private colleges.

Agreed, but SCOTUS will most likely rule the opposite when the time comes. This is just setting the stage for public funding of religious schools.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Disgusting decision.

Not really. The program was a f[inks]ing abomination for funding any type of private schools at all. This will put an end to this practice entirely, no price school should ever receive any public funds under any circumstances whatsoever. I'd even support banning Pell Grants to private colleges.

Agreed, but SCOTUS will most likely rule the opposite when the time comes. This is just setting the stage for public funding of religious schools.

SCOTUS can rule how it wants. If kulturkampf dictates that local Democrats are only prepared to fund these kinds of programs for secular private schools and the Court dictates that they can’t pick and choose, the funding will probably be cut for all private schools (as it should be).

[MasterJedi]

No tax money should be used for any private school. If they want to send them to private they can pay, don't need them mooching off of the government.

[Del Tachi]

Freedom decision. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Logical conclusion in light of Trinity Lutheran and the Montana case.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On a side note regardless of what you think of the decision, this sort of take is not some sort of own and just makes you look stupid.

https://twitter.com/Tbirrdheflin/status/1539255949990449152
https://twitter.com/AnyFishAnyTime/status/1539255795359129605
https://twitter.com/SirDanielJ/status/1539256448181575681
https://twitter.com/EyeAmThatGuy/status/1539256533300789252
The answer is yes, the decision applies to them too. Your point?

Actually the really dumb thing about this "point" is the Council of Islamic Schools of North America actually filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case!

There's plenty you can criticize about this decision, but this is not an argument and it fails even as a "gotcha". And frankly it's a bit amusing these people think even the SCOTUS conservatives would particularly care about these ramifications. Even Alito as a federal circuit judge pre-SCOTUS ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Muslims against a New Jersey municipality that didn't allow municipal employees to have beards. It's not an argument and it doesn't even prove any justice's hypocrisy.... it's just the lamest "own the cons" attempt ever, kind of the inverse of when conservatives think saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays" actually seriously upsets anyone.

[NewYorkExpress]

On a side note regardless of what you think of the decision, this sort of take is not some sort of own and just makes you look stupid.

https://twitter.com/Tbirrdheflin/status/1539255949990449152
https://twitter.com/AnyFishAnyTime/status/1539255795359129605
https://twitter.com/SirDanielJ/status/1539256448181575681
https://twitter.com/EyeAmThatGuy/status/1539256533300789252
The answer is yes, the decision applies to them too. Your point?

Actually the really dumb thing about this "point" is the Council of Islamic Schools of North America actually filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case!

There's plenty you can criticize about this decision, but this is not an argument and it fails even as a "gotcha". And frankly it's a bit amusing these people think even the SCOTUS conservatives would particularly care about these ramifications. Even Alito as a federal circuit judge pre-SCOTUS ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Muslims against a New Jersey municipality that didn't allow municipal employees to have beards. It's not an argument and it doesn't even prove any justice's hypocrisy.... it's just the lamest "own the cons" attempt ever, kind of the inverse of when conservatives think saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays" actually seriously upsets anyone.

If such a case came up in this court, I think it would be between a six and eight vote majority in favor of the madrassa, with at least one conservative justice writing a dissent that Islam isn't actually a religion, or that the First Amendment only protects denominations of Christianity (which might be Thomas's position).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On a side note regardless of what you think of the decision, this sort of take is not some sort of own and just makes you look stupid.

https://twitter.com/Tbirrdheflin/status/1539255949990449152
https://twitter.com/AnyFishAnyTime/status/1539255795359129605
https://twitter.com/SirDanielJ/status/1539256448181575681
https://twitter.com/EyeAmThatGuy/status/1539256533300789252
The answer is yes, the decision applies to them too. Your point?

Actually the really dumb thing about this "point" is the Council of Islamic Schools of North America actually filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case!

There's plenty you can criticize about this decision, but this is not an argument and it fails even as a "gotcha". And frankly it's a bit amusing these people think even the SCOTUS conservatives would particularly care about these ramifications. Even Alito as a federal circuit judge pre-SCOTUS ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Muslims against a New Jersey municipality that didn't allow municipal employees to have beards. It's not an argument and it doesn't even prove any justice's hypocrisy.... it's just the lamest "own the cons" attempt ever, kind of the inverse of when conservatives think saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays" actually seriously upsets anyone.

If such a case came up in this court, I think it would be between a six and eight vote majority in favor of the madrassa, with at least one conservative justice writing a dissent that Islam isn't actually a religion, or that the First Amendment only protects denominations of Christianity (which might be Thomas's position).

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/20/378639564/supreme-court-rules-for-muslim-inmate-in-prison-beard-case

Unanimous decision, written by Alito. For all the many many things you can attack the SCOTUS conservatives for, the notion they give preferential treatment to Christianity only in religious discrimination cases is not one of them.

[jojoju1998]

Disgusting decision.

Not really. The program was a f[inks]ing abomination for funding any type of private schools at all. This will put an end to this practice entirely, no price school should ever receive any public funds under any circumstances whatsoever. I'd even support banning Pell Grants to private colleges.

Agreed, but SCOTUS will most likely rule the opposite when the time comes. This is just setting the stage for public funding of religious schools.

Most other countries in the Western World have funding for religious schools ( and yet, ironically less religion because along funding comes state control of curriculum, and a need to " fit in ". ).

[Mr. Reactionary]

On a side note regardless of what you think of the decision, this sort of take is not some sort of own and just makes you look stupid.

https://twitter.com/Tbirrdheflin/status/1539255949990449152
https://twitter.com/AnyFishAnyTime/status/1539255795359129605
https://twitter.com/SirDanielJ/status/1539256448181575681
https://twitter.com/EyeAmThatGuy/status/1539256533300789252
The answer is yes, the decision applies to them too. Your point?

Actually the really dumb thing about this "point" is the Council of Islamic Schools of North America actually filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case!

There's plenty you can criticize about this decision, but this is not an argument and it fails even as a "gotcha". And frankly it's a bit amusing these people think even the SCOTUS conservatives would particularly care about these ramifications. Even Alito as a federal circuit judge pre-SCOTUS ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Muslims against a New Jersey municipality that didn't allow municipal employees to have beards. It's not an argument and it doesn't even prove any justice's hypocrisy.... it's just the lamest "own the cons" attempt ever, kind of the inverse of when conservatives think saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays" actually seriously upsets anyone.

Yeah. in Holt v. Hobbs the Court unanimously ruled in favor of a convicted murderer muslim who wanted a beard in prison for religious reasons. In EEOC v. Abercrombie & fitch the court said it was illegal discrimination to not hire a person for wearing a hijab. In church of the lukumi the court struck down a law targeting black Santeria animal sacrifice. In the O Centro case, the court protected hallucenogen shaman tea used by latinos. In cutter v wilkinson they protected wiccan prisoners. Like, the Supreme court is pretty consistent in protecting all religions and not just christianity.

[Torie]

Assuming arguendo that the school while owned and operated by a religious institution does not teach theology on a discriminatory basis (e.g., if a Catholic school teaches Catholic theology, it must also teach the theology of other religions on a non discriminatory basis as part of a liberal arts education on the topic of theology), and thus is barred solely by virtue of the religious status of its owners, does that not trouble anyone as a violation of the free exercise clause. Here, the state is being required to hand out money irrespective of the religious status or lack thereof of the owners, and that certainly seems reasonable as to what the free exercise clause requires.

As an atheist, I concur in the Roberts decision, provided that the religious school avoids discriminating as described above in its curriculum.

Although not relevant here, I have also endorsed school vouchers since rocks cooled as a policy matter, and still do.

[jojoju1998]

Assuming arguendo that the school while owned and operated by a religious institution does not teach theology on a discriminatory basis (e.g., if a Catholic school teaches Catholic theology, it must also teach the theology of other religions on a non discriminatory basis as part of a liberal arts education on the topic of theology), and thus is barred solely by virtue of the religious status of its owners, does that not trouble anyway as a violation of the free exercise clause. Here the state is handing out money irrespective of the religious status or lack thereof of the owners, and that certainly seems non discriminatory to me.

As an atheist, I concur in the Roberts decision, provided that the religious school avoids discriminating as described above in its curriculum.

Although not relevant here, I have also endorsed school vouchers since rocks cooled as a policy matter, and still do.

I don't know about other christians, but most catholic schools are very light on the theology. In fact; many non christians choose catholic schools because of the academic quality. ( Those jesuits ).

[GP270watch]

 The Supreme Court has been on a roll with these awful decisions. And worse is that you have fake Democrats and fake progressives trying to soothe these terrible decisions and even give them legitimacy.

[Del Tachi]

The only thing surprising about this ruling was that it wasn't 9-0.  The precedent is very clear that you can't exclude religious organizations from public funding based solely on the fact that they're religious.   

[Benjamin Frank]

I have a few questions on this. I assume this is for K-12 schools mostly. Here in British Columbia, private schools receive 50% per student funding that public schools receive on the realization that this saves the public school system 50% per student.

There are some people here who are unhappy with this, but they're mostly left wingers who are bad at basic arithmetic.

However, in order to receive the funding, the private schools have to follow certain rules. I'd like to know if this ruling calls for the same thing. The private schools must:

1.Follow the provincial curriculum
2.Accept any student who applies

These are the full rules that have to be followed:

Be operated by a non-profit independent school authority
Employ B.C. certified teachers
Have educational programs consistent with ministerial orders
Provide a program that meets the learning outcomes of the B.C. curriculum
Meet various administrative requirements
Maintain adequate educational facilities
Comply with municipal and regional district codes

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/program-management/independent-schools/funding

I think most people regard this as win-win, except for those who can't figure out basic arithmetic (funding private schools at 50% saves taxpayers' money, it does not cost more.)

Beyond that, these parents also pay taxes, why shouldn't they receive school funding for their children?

(I teach at a school that receives no taxpayer funding.)