Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!

[B-Man]

 

 

34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion). 
 

 

AND.........that is exactly what the court ruled was unconstitutional.

 

 

 

The state’s constitution requires Maine to deliver a “free” education to every school-age child, to fix this gap, the legislature created a voucher program but set it up so that parents could not apply the reimbursements to religious schools.

 

If that sounds familiar, it should. The court disposed of similar cases in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza over the last few years, striking down so-called Blaine Amendments that explicitly disfavored Catholic schools in particular.

 

In this case as well, this was a “neutral benefit program” for parents to use in their choice of schools in the lack of any public education options. And as such, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that crosses the line into an infringement on religious expression, especially since the legislature deliberately added this restriction after the program had been in operation for years

 

 

It is Freedom OF Religion in the constitution, not freedom FROM religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by B-Man

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

AND.........that is exactly what the court ruled was unconstitutional.

 

 

 

The state’s constitution requires Maine to deliver a “free” education to every school-age child, to fix this gap, the legislature created a voucher program but set it up so that parents could not apply the reimbursements to religious schools.

 

If that sounds familiar, it should. The court disposed of similar cases in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza over the last few years, striking down so-called Blaine Amendments that explicitly disfavored Catholic schools in particular.

 

In this case as well, this was a “neutral benefit program” for parents to use in their choice of schools in the lack of any public education options. And as such, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that crosses the line into an infringement on religious expression, especially since the legislature deliberately added this restriction after the program had been in operation for years

 

 

It is Freedom OF Religion in the constitution, not freedom FROM religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I may have missed it but was the issue that there were no schools that met the standards so they had to go to a religious school? It doesn’t look like that from a brief scan of the arguments. 
 

From what I can tell from the certified question is that the parents *opted* to use sectarian schools, not that they had to. 
 

That is a VERY different argument than saying the only school they could go to in the area was sectarian. In that case, they have a good argument for that a lack of subsidy would be denying their right to an education. 
 

But if it’s a just a choice (i.e. there are local schools that qualify but they preferred a religious one), then what we are seeing here is that taxpayers must subsidize religious education. 
 

That would NOT be a ruling to ensure access to education because they had access to education at a qualifying school they opted not to use. 
 

Also, the Constitution actually guarantees both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.
 

This ruling means that Catholics may have to pay money to Muslim schools or Jews may have to pay money to Hindu schools. And they would have no say in the matter. It also continues the entanglement of the government into religious affairs. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

So, basically, “fund children, not schools.” Children would no longer be prisoners sentenced to attend garbage schools because of where they live.

 

In a sane world, this news would be celebrated by everyone.

 

But in the crazy world we live in, CNN is flipping out:

 

 

 

Sounds familiar............🤔

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, CNN’s not all that concerned about what’s actually in the Constitution.

 

Just like they’re not all that concerned with what’s actually happening to real people outside of their cozy little bubble.

 

If there’s one thing elitists gravitate toward, it’s other elitists.

 

 

 

Keep those poor kids in their own schools.

 

*Note I didn't use quotes, because it's not a real quote.  That would be against board policy.

 

 

.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

So, basically, “fund children, not schools.” Children would no longer be prisoners sentenced to attend garbage schools because of where they live.

 

In a sane world, this news would be celebrated by everyone.

 

But in the crazy world we live in, CNN is flipping out:

 

 

 

Sounds familiar............🤔

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, CNN’s not all that concerned about what’s actually in the Constitution.

 

Just like they’re not all that concerned with what’s actually happening to real people outside of their cozy little bubble.

 

If there’s one thing elitists gravitate toward, it’s other elitists.

 

 

 

Keep those poor kids in their own schools.

 

*Note I didn't use quotes, because it's not a real quote.  That would be against board policy.

 

 

.

1. I don’t give a ***** about what CNN says and I have no idea why it would be relevant to the discussion. 
 

2. I think there is a decent debate to be had around education but I’ve always held what I believe to be the small “c” conservative view of the government only providing public education and not getting entangled in religion. 
 

From what I can tell, there was no issue with the quality of the other schools. And even if there were, there’s an argument for making those schools better instead of continuing to move funds away from them. 
 

I have absolutely zero problem with parents choosing religious schools for their kids. My parents did that for me. What I have a problem with is taxpayer money going to religious institutions for secular education as this would be a tacit governmental endorsement of that religion. 

[B-Man]

 

 

JUSTICE BREYER stresses the importance of “government neutrality” when it comes to religious matters... 

 

but there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program.

 

The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious.

 

That is discrimination against religion.

 

A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available pub-lic benefit because of their religious exercise.

 

 

 

CORRECTED:

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This ruling means that Catholics Americans may have to pay money to Muslim American schools 

 

or Jews  Americans have to pay money to Hindu   Americans.

 

And they would have no say in the matter. 

 

 

Leftists dividing Americans as usual.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by B-Man

[LeviF]

Public dollars going to religious institutions as the result of private choice is not unconstitutional. This has been litigated in various forms time and again with the same results, as noted by C.J. Roberts in this very case. 

 

Not only that, but it's noted that as long as a private school identified itself to the state as "non-sectarian," there was little scrutiny applied to that label. Which means that the entire argument for excluding sectarian schools from the choices available to parents for their tuition assistance payments is arbitrary and capricious. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

JUSTICE BREYER stresses the importance of “government neutrality” when it comes to religious matters...  but there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program. The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available pub-lic benefit because of their religious exercise.

 

 

 

CORRECTED:

 

Leftists dividing Americans as usual.

 

 

 

So you would be fine with your taxpayer dollars going to educate kids to join Islam? Or Judaism? Or Catholicism? Or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

If the Church of Satan established a school in Maine, do you think it would be a good idea for Maine taxpayers to subsidize it?

 

I don’t. I do not believe the government should have a hand in religious education. I also believe that the constitutional requirement of prohibiting the government from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion is incongruous with funneling taxpayer dollars into religious education.

[B-Man]

27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you would be fine with your taxpayer dollars going to educate kids to join Islam? Or Judaism? Or Catholicism? Or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

If the Church of Satan established a school in Maine, do you think it would be a good idea for Maine taxpayers to subsidize it?

 

I don’t. I do not believe the government should have a hand in religious education. I also believe that the constitutional requirement of prohibiting the government from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion is incongruous with funneling taxpayer dollars into religious education.

 

Hysteria.

 

 

We'll make it simple what the ruling means.

 

Education funding belongs to students, not schools.

 

SCOTUS ruled earlier today that religious schools in Maine cannot be excluded from tuition assistance simply because they are religious. And of course, since this was a ruling for the good guys, the bad guys are all sorts of discombobulated and ticked off screeching about MUH SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and making stupid jokes about the Church of Satan.

Case in point.

 

Nice try with that whole Church of Satan thing but NOPE. We get it, he’s trying to prove there is some Christian slant here on the ruling because he doesn’t want religious schools to benefit from any sort of funding BUT if the Church of Satan had a private school and parents wanted to send their kids there?

Yes, they could.

 

This Townsend person explained it far better than we can:

 

 

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

Unless you are concerned about giving responsibility back to the parents ?

 

 

 

If it was accredited by the state, and the parents wished to send their child to the school, then that child's share of education money would go to the school.

 

Pretty simple and not some grand Christian conspiracy to indoctrinate kids.

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/06/21/wajahat-ali-thinks-hes-owning-scotus-with-lame-tweet-asking-if-maine-taxpayers-would-have-to-fund-a-church-of-satan-school-hes-wrong-so-wrong/

 

 

 

 

.

[LeviF]

What about mooslims and jew skoolz?!?

 

Somehow I feel that the Supreme Court managed to think that through as well. 
 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1088/171699/20210311154242895_20-1088 Amici Brief.pdf

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, LeviF said:

Public dollars going to religious institutions as the result of private choice is not unconstitutional. This has been litigated in various forms time and again with the same results, as noted by C.J. Roberts in this very case. 

 

Not only that, but it's noted that as long as a private school identified itself to the state as "non-sectarian," there was little scrutiny applied to that label. Which means that the entire argument for excluding sectarian schools from the choices available to parents for their tuition assistance payments is arbitrary and capricious. 

I hope you’re sitting down because … I agree. 
We got a bit carried away with the whole “entanglement” thing in the religion cases. I see no constitutional bar to funding (through its students) a school operated by a religious organization. Even one with a religious orientation. 
One caveat: a hard-and-fast no funding to religious schools rule is easy to administer. It’s religious? It doesn’t get state funding. Not even by subsidizing the tuition it’s students pay. The Maine rule announced today? That brings us more litigation. It requires state oversight over curricula and minimum standards. Does a strict orthodox school that teaches only scripture and interpretations of scripture (but no math, science, world/US history, etc) qualify? I say no. Same with a strict Koranic school - the type the Taliban believes is the only true education. We are subsidizing students (and, in turn, their schools) to ensure access to the basic educational requirements we think every school should have. 30 hours of reading, writing, arithmetic per week with 3 hours of religion (of your choice)? Fine. The reverse? Not so fine. 

[Big Blitz]

What's a religion?

[Andy1]

Interesting ruling. I wonder how long it will be before people freak out that their tax dollars are funding Muslim schools somewhere. I could see the same people celebrating this ruling screaming in the future about their tax dollars funding the teaching of Sharia law in Muslim schools. I’m not sure how I feel about this ruling but I generally prefer that church and state stay separate. It’s best for both institutions. 

[Precision]

I don't see the big deal here, it's more like a family argument.  I mean this is Maine we're talking about, everyone there is related!

 

😀

[B-Man]

23 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Interesting ruling. I wonder how long it will be before people freak out that their tax dollars are funding Muslim schools somewhere. I could see the same people celebrating this ruling screaming in the future about their tax dollars funding the teaching of Sharia law in Muslim schools. I’m not sure how I feel about this ruling but I generally prefer that church and state stay separate. It’s best for both institutions. 

 

 

That is NOT how it works, as pointed out in earlier posts.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

On 6/21/2022 at 1:32 PM, B-Man said:

 

Hysteria.

 

 

We'll make it simple what the ruling means.

 

Education funding belongs to students, not schools.

 

SCOTUS ruled earlier today that religious schools in Maine cannot be excluded from tuition assistance simply because they are religious. And of course, since this was a ruling for the good guys, the bad guys are all sorts of discombobulated and ticked off screeching about MUH SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and making stupid jokes about the Church of Satan.

Case in point.

 

Nice try with that whole Church of Satan thing but NOPE. We get it, he’s trying to prove there is some Christian slant here on the ruling because he doesn’t want religious schools to benefit from any sort of funding BUT if the Church of Satan had a private school and parents wanted to send their kids there?

Yes, they could.

 

This Townsend person explained it far better than we can:

 

 

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

Unless you are concerned about giving responsibility back to the parents ?

 

 

 

If it was accredited by the state, and the parents wished to send their child to the school, then that child's share of education money would go to the school.

 

Pretty simple and not some grand Christian conspiracy to indoctrinate kids.

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/06/21/wajahat-ali-thinks-hes-owning-scotus-with-lame-tweet-asking-if-maine-taxpayers-would-have-to-fund-a-church-of-satan-school-hes-wrong-so-wrong/

 

 

 

 

.

Little do they know, that the public schools are ‘The Church of Satan’ 🤣🤣🤣😉

[B-Man]

 

 

FIGHT THE POWER: Federal judge agrees to expedite religious freedom lawsuit against Biden admin.

 

 

Freedom OF religion..............................Not FROM

 

 

 

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18216

 

 

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

FIGHT THE POWER: Federal judge agrees to expedite religious freedom lawsuit against Biden admin.

 

 

Freedom OF religion..............................Not FROM

 

 

 

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18216

 

 

 

The traditional reading of the First Amendment on religion is that it is both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. We have both the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause for this.

 

Essentially, you are free to practice the religion of your choice and that government can not establish a national religion, enact laws to preference one religion over another, or preference religion over non-religion or vice versa.

 

Of course, it has been a recent trend in SCOTUS to weaken or even do away with the Establishment Clause, so I think we can expect more cases and rulings allowing for government endorsement or religion despite the text and original meaning of the Constitution.

[B-Man]

They keep trying. 
 

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

33 minutes ago, B-Man said:

They keep trying. 
 

 

 

 

Should be an easy ruling…

[B-Man]

Same argument, same state. 

I’m gay, I support gay marriage, and I don’t think the ‘gay rights’ side should win in this Supreme Court case.

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. The case centers around Lorie Smith, a Christian who owns a website design business. She wants to expand her business and start designing custom wedding websites, but due to her religious beliefs, is unwilling to create them for same-sex weddings, as she would be forced to do under current Colorado civil rights law. Smith is challenging the Colorado statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing that she has a free speech right (note: the case is not about religious liberty) not to be forced to create messages she disagrees with.

 

No, she’s not suing because she wants to put a “no-gays allowed” sign in her window. In fact, she has served many LGBTQ clients and offers her general services to all. Smith is simply unwilling to create a custom wedding website, which inherently endorses said wedding, for a ceremony she does not agree with. She says she would seek to make the same refusal to other custom websites that violate her beliefs, including those which denigrate gay people or feature a heterosexual couple in violation of other tenets of her Christian faith.

 

 

The state of Colorado, on the other hand, argues that her religion does not grant her an exemption to a neutral civil rights law. The government argues that if Smith is going to offer wedding websites, she must offer them to all.

 

https://www.based-politics.com/2022/12/05/303-creative-im-gay-and-i-dont-think-the-gay-rights-side-should-win/
 

 

[T master]

On 12/4/2020 at 10:11 AM, Tiberius said:

This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying 

 

And we wonder why the world is going to hell in a hand basket (as they use to say) the moral structure of this country is in the toilet yet they ask WHY ??

 

 

[B-Man]

 

The Supreme Court is preparing to strike 
down forced speech

 

 

In a case argued at the Supreme Court this week, a Colorado website designer appealed a decision from lower courts requiring her to create wedding websites for gay couples in violation of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court is likely to reverse the lower court decision, and allow her to decline to create such websites.

 

https://theaspenbeat.com/2022/12/07/the-supreme-court-is-preparing-to-strike-down-forced-speech/
 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

It’s SCOTUS Decision Season Again! Here Are the Cases to Watch.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2023/05/15/its-scotus-decision-season-again-here-are-the-cases-to-watch-n1695413

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

More FREEDOM rulings !!!

 

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS unanimously yanks chain on EPA in Sackett

 

Anyone want to take bets on the life expectancy of the Chevron doctrine after today’s unanimous decision on Sackett v EPA?

 

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the EPA had grossly overstepped its congressional mandate in defining “Waters of the United States,” vastly limiting its authority to declare jurisdiction over what it claims to be “wetlands” on private property.

 

It’s the second such loss in as many years for the EPA’s attempt to aggrandize its jurisdiction

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/05/25/boom-scotus-unanimously-yanks-chain-on-epa-in-waters-of-the-us-case-n553404

 

 

 

 

 

.

[SCBills]

This was a 9-0 ruling. 
 

 

[JDHillFan]

 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

This was a 9-0 ruling. 
 

 

If a vote went 9-0 against me I would at the very least think about how that is possible considering the makeup of this court.

[B-Man]

 

 

More good news

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

If a vote went 9-0 against me I would at the very least think about how that is possible considering the makeup of this court.

The EPA case is another example of one of thousands of executive branch actions to promulgate rules and regulations beyond the scope of the authority granted by the legislature.  If they don't like the court ruling they're free to submit legislation to the House which if passed by Congress and signed by the President would grant the authority to the agency that the court struck down.

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The EPA case is another example of one of thousands of executive branch actions to promulgate rules and regulations beyond the scope of the authority granted by the legislature.  If they don't like the court ruling they're free to submit legislation to the House which if passed by Congress and signed by the President would grant the authority to the agency that the court struck down.

 

 

Major SCOTUS Decision Neuters EPA, Leaves Democrats Spinning in Circles

 

 

 

While the overall decision was 9-0, finding that the EPA went too far in its interpretation of its power, the Justices split when it came to their concurrences. The liberals, led by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the court was going too far in deciding what environmental policy in the country is. Personally, I find that to be ludicrous. If a bureaucracy oversteps its legal bounds, who else but the courts would be able to offer protection to normal Americans suffering under such tyranny? Congress certainly can’t act on such a case-by-case basis.

 

As to the conservatives, five of them, led by Justice Samuel Alito, took the approach of actually laying out what the EPA can and can’t do under the Clean Water Act. They noted that for something to be regulated as a “water of the United States,” it must actually be connected to such in a continuous fashion. That seems proper given anything else is just a free-for-all, with the EPA getting to decide arbitrarily which pieces of private property it can exert near total power over. Imagine buying a piece of land and then the federal government telling you it’s now worthless and that you can’t live on it because they say so. That’s what happened to the Sacketts.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/25/major-scotus-decision-neuters-epa-leaves-democrats-spinning-in-circles-n751551

 

.

[Big Blitz]

Trump’s greatest legacy is this SCOTUS.   

[Tommy Callahan]

10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Major SCOTUS Decision Neuters EPA, Leaves Democrats Spinning in Circles

 

 

 

While the overall decision was 9-0, finding that the EPA went too far in its interpretation of its power, the Justices split when it came to their concurrences. The liberals, led by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the court was going too far in deciding what environmental policy in the country is. Personally, I find that to be ludicrous. If a bureaucracy oversteps its legal bounds, who else but the courts would be able to offer protection to normal Americans suffering under such tyranny? Congress certainly can’t act on such a case-by-case basis.

 

As to the conservatives, five of them, led by Justice Samuel Alito, took the approach of actually laying out what the EPA can and can’t do under the Clean Water Act. They noted that for something to be regulated as a “water of the United States,” it must actually be connected to such in a continuous fashion. That seems proper given anything else is just a free-for-all, with the EPA getting to decide arbitrarily which pieces of private property it can exert near total power over. Imagine buying a piece of land and then the federal government telling you it’s now worthless and that you can’t live on it because they say so. That’s what happened to the Sacketts.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/25/major-scotus-decision-neuters-epa-leaves-democrats-spinning-in-circles-n751551

 

.

That ruling is great news for local, state and personal property rights.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

More good news.

 

SCOTUS to unions, 8-1: You break it, you bought it

by Ed Morrissey

 

Alternate headline: Pottery Barn rules apply to walkouts. In an 8-1 decision in which only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson fully dissented, the Supreme Court ruled today that unions have to reimburse employers for damages caused by striking workers.

 

The National Labor Relations Act does not confer immunity to unions or workers — the latest ruling from a court that has stiffened the boundaries for labor activities in the last few years: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability. 

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/06/01/scotus-to-unions-8-1-you-break-it-you-bought-it-n554988

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by B-Man

[boyst]

47 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

***** awesome 

[KDIGGZ]

Awesome news! Absolutely common sense. Racism sucks! Nobody should be judged by the color of their skin. This is a great day and I hope this ruling has a lasting impact on other race based nonsense laws in this country. I hope for a day where we are all just considered HUMANS and skin color is never mentioned again

[The Frankish Reich]

Probably needs it's own topic. Coming in 3, 2, 1 ...

[Tommy Callahan]

And as soon as the ruling came out. twitter was full of voices saying, "expand the courts", "there are ways around this ruling to maintain diversity."

 

LMAO

 

this is a very good ruling and a long time coming.

 

as good as the FDA finally removing aspartame from the market.

 

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Omg