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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

My issue here isn't really criticizing the decision itself which since it was 6-3 I'm sure the liberals had good points in dissent although as stated I'm not really bothered simply because I don't think any type of private school should get public funds, but rather the many "OH SO THEY NEED TO FUND MUSLIM SCHOOLS NOW?!" retorts which is just really really stupid. It's not an argument and as noted fails even as a "gotcha".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I can't wait until Pastafarian schools start getting government funding.

If someone actually founds one and it can meet the accreditation standards of its state, then what's the problem? This is really just a slight variation on that lame "Oh wow this means Muslim schools can get funding now!" barb.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Actually I managed to find an even dumber take than in the replies than the one about Muslim schools.

https://twitter.com/lucywebyoga/status/1539378722859388929

Imagine knowing ANYTHING about the demographic makeup of the SCOTUS and actually tweeting this, LMAO (yes, I know that the poster almost certainly knows jack sh!t about said demographic makeup.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So upon some more research it appears the reason Maine has this program is because in rural Maine it's often so desolate there aren't any public schools in the area, and the cost of building them or setting up transportation to the nearest one would be immense. So this program replaced it: in such areas parents are given a fund they can use to pay to send their kid to a nearby private school instead. With that context I'm going to say that I'm fine with the program and that it's quite different from those awful "voucher" ones that Republicans love to push in urban areas, as long as this only applies to such rural areas.

The issue here was Maine law specifically prohibited religious schools from receiving state funds. Since religious schools might be the closest one available and it's the parents' choice, I'm going to say this part of the law is stupid. And before anyone accuses me of being religiously biased, remember that most religious schools in the US are Catholic, and I'd imagine the vast majority are in rural Maine, and Catholic schools probably made the majority of petitioners here.

The reason I can't say I support this decision and the liberals dissented is because I don't think the Maine law, while dumb, constituted unconstitutional religious discrimination. This was also the basis of the liberals' dissent, NOT because they held that any religious organization receiving state funds is unconstitutional. A case on that would no doubt be 9-0. Remember if any type of government funds were banned from going to religious organizations, that means religious colleges couldn't receive Pell Grants or state scholarships (or arguably even student loans) and local governments couldn't provide any type of funding or aid to church-ran homeless shelters or food pantries. But that's a pretty out there position that exists only on the Internet and not in any serious legal circles.

So while I don't agree with this decision, it's still a very far cry from the "THEOCRACY" nonsense that people are raving about in the replies and here and even the dissenters didn't dissent on that basis. Save your outrage for the Roe v. Wade overturn.

And of course in regards to the "But what about Muslim schools?" bit the question is asked how many Muslims there even are in rural Maine but of course the decision would apply to them if any state had a program that would cover such schools. As for the "LOL I'm going to create a Satanist or Pastafarian school now and sweep in that flood of state money!" type comments we're seeing here and in that thread, consider that someone doing so would have to do all of the following:

1-Build an appropriate school or acquire a workable building...not cheap either way.
2-Obtain all required licensing with the state.
3-Hire enough qualified teachers to constitute a school.
4-Pass all required accreditation standards.
5-Actually get parents to send their kids to said school. Last one is key because this isn't dealing with some type of block grants, the money was distributed to the parents for the purpose of paying the school. No parents sending students = no money.

So if anyone is actually willing to expend all that time and money just for a cheap "LOL own the cons" trolling stunt and is somehow able to convince enough parents to send their kids to the school, then yeah go ahead. But somehow I don't see that happening.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, your long post left me totally confused. You think that while  a law that forces parents to get the stipend must have their kids be bused 50 miles, right past a Catholic school within walking distance that meets state requirements otherwise, while being dumb, is also Constitutional,  because ... ?

Because there's not some arbitrary standard in question. Just a dumb one.

My main point though is that it seems everyone is misunderstanding the case. The liberals didn't even dissent because they thought there should be no funding whatsoever of religious organizations (like I said a case on that would easily be 9-0), but because they didn't think the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Also there's a ton of stupid posts (I even highlighted one covering the really stupid and completely irrelevant point about Muslim schools) referencing federal funding...when this case didn't involve federal funds at all!