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

[they don't love you like i love you]

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".

[Storr]

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

[DaleCooper]

This isn't a bad decision. The one I'm worried about is the one that will inevitably allow teachers and school employees/representatives to lead student prayer at school-sponsored events.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.)

[GoTfan]

No private or religious school should receive any sort of government funding. People want to run them privately? Cool. They fund it themselves with no assistance. If it closes, tough.

[Ebowed]

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.

...

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

Atheists often overestimate the degree to which average Christians share their Islamophobia.

[Badger]

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

[jojoju1998]

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

I don’t think any high performing Religous school or even a standard non Religous private school would want state funding, because it would also mean state control.

State control over religion is a bad bad thing.

Also with the exception of evangelical schools, most catholic, episcopal, mainline Protestant schools are very light on the theology.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[Yoda]

I don't even really mind this particular decision that much TBH (and I am VERY much in favor of a wall between church and state) BUT the completely logical, inescapable conclusion to SCOTUS' rulings on religious schools is that they will eventually mandate public funding of religious schools, which is pure insanity. This court is theocratic.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This was definitely the right decision. The state CHOSE to get into the game of giving money to private school tuition funding, and then decided to carve out an exception to that for parents who want to send their kids to religious schools. That's them discriminating against religion specifically, and it was terribly designed from the start.

[Torie]

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 ... ?

[they don't love you like i love you]

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!

[Torie]

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!

Dumb  standards that violate the free exercise clause are still illegal, precisely because they are not random walk arbitrary. I appreciate those that hate schools with a religious affiliation are discommoded when there are no other schools around, public or private, within a distance that would be acceptable, if one cares at all about the humans involved.

I also think it is a sin when one does not have at the top of the food chain, getting kids whose parents cannot otherwise afford it, in the best possible schools available,  no matter what, particularly if it does not cost the State more money.

After the culture wars end, and the secular v religious wars end, and all else that is toxic is exorcised, perhaps necessitating the Jubilee, but I hope not, we can back to the basics, and do our best to maximize the potential of the young, irrespective of status. And on that, our nation has not performed even barely adequately, due to the toxins that deflect the public square from a righteous path.

[politicallefty]

I don't see how all the talk about the so-called "discrimination against religion" isn't inevitably going to lead this Court to attack or outright overturn Engel v. Vitale and its progeny. I haven't been hyperbolic like some about what to expect from this Court, but it does not seem to have much respect for the Establishment Clause. Apart from what the Court has done and could potentially do to the electoral system in this country, I am probably most disturbed and horrified at the prospect of Engel and its progeny being substantially eroded or overturned. I think it was, without a doubt, one of the absolute best decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court.

[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.

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".

 Bro, the conservative Supreme Court is making it up as they go along case by case using any rationale to pass a wishlist that the right has been wanting for 40 years. Please Wake Up.

 This court hasn't respected freedom of religion for Muslims anyways besides some meaningless rulings. Whenever they've had tough decisions they have actually gone against the freedom of religion and allowed discrimination.

Justices Let Alabama Execute Death Row Inmate Who Wanted Imam By His Side

In Big Win For White House, Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban

[Torie]

In other news, it turns out the two religious affiliated schools that sued, can't get funds in any event. Why? Because 1) they discriminate against LQTBQ students, and 2) Maine, having  expected to lose the Carson, case passed a law denying eligibility to receive funds for schools who discriminate against LQBTQ's in their admission policies. The implication is that the legislature knew that the school eschewed the rainbow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/opinion/supreme-court-guns-religion.html