Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination

[Mac1958]

Never thought I would se a proposal to bring in Sharia Law..

It's not easy to head one's head around. So weird to live in times like this, and who would have thought that America would move towards a authoritarian theocracy?

Bad enough that most of these phonies only use their "Christianity" as a handy excuse.

 

[Ringtone]

Is there precedent the justices were relying on, from previous supreme court decisions on like, cases?

Excellent question!

Yes. Everson v. The Board of Education (1947).

In fact, what's most hilarious about the three stooges' dissent in this case (Carson v. Makin) is that the operative stare decisis was established by the leftist Warren Court. The don't even seem to be aware of that. Hacks!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The base of our constitution separation of church & state.

Have you read the Constitution?


Do you know that there is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in it?????

 

[whitehall]

I don't know about the KKK stuff but the leftist doctrine of separation is definitely fallacious. You're alluding, of course, to Everson v. The Board of Education (1947), on which I wrote an article. Actually, Everson got the first part of the decision right but then mangled the doctrine of separation with Black's incoherent la-la about a “high and impregnable wall between church and state.”

Ironically, the leftist dodos on the current Court don't even seem to know that their dissent is actually contrary to the Court's principle finding in Everson. It's their dissent that would constitute an overthrow of the prevailing stare decisis.

They are friggin' morons unfit to be on the Court in the first place.

Justice Black was a KKK member appointed to the Court by FDR. At the time around 1948 Catholic schools were springing up and the federal government didn't like it. Justice Black like most KKK members had an abiding hatred toward Papists as well as people of color so he found a obscure letter from Jefferson rather than Constitutional law to create a wall that did not exist. Through the years the democrat party expanded the concept and phony organizations like the ACLU threatened small jurisdictions with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared to put up a Christmas tree on public property. A single agnostic nut case claimed to be offended by a half century old Korean War monument that featured a 40 ft Cross and a series of liberal judges ordered it bulldozed until President Bush issued an E.O. that saved it.

 

[Ringtone]

It's not easy to head one's head around. So weird to live in times like this, and who would have thought that America would move towards a authoritarian theocracy?

Bad enough that most of these phonies only use their "Christianity" as a handy excuse.

You don't know what you're talking about! The operative ratio decidendi for Carson v. Makin is the very same as that for Everson v. The Board of Education (1947).

The dissenting jurists are either ignorant of that, which is hard to believe, or along with the leftist media are lying to the public.

However, due to the nature of the particulars in this case, the decision portends to be an important step toward universal school choice vis-a-vis the distribution of the revenue collected for education.

 

[Coyote]

Why should those parents who send their children to private schools still have to pay
for public schools?

Because we are only required to pay for a public school education, not a Cadillac education. Using the same argument why should people with no kids pay?

 

[Coyote]

How about simply endorsing freedom, and allowing parents to choose where they send their children.

They are perfectly free to do so. They just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize it

 

[Coyote]

To note, I read the hyperbole in response to your question and I want to first state I am in no way aligned with those view points.

That said, I only know what I've read about the system noted here, It is stated that funding a public school is hard because of so few kids, so people have started their own small schools for this venture. I will note that I fully support public schools but if this is the case in Maine, then it is. I also don't think people should have to bus their kids an hour away or something to attend school.

This I agree with. And, in this sort of situation I agree that private religious schools should be treated the same as any other private school.

Now more to your question..........since it is the taxpayers kids going to these schools, I don't understand why you are unable to understand that they want some of that sent to private schools, especially since the public schools seem to not be able to meet the needs in this case. Now you have the question of the kinds of private schools to fund but that was not your question.

I am perfectly fine with them choosing private schools, they just shouldn't expect tbe rest of us to subsidize it.

 

[pknopp]

This I agree with. And, in this sort of situation I agree that private religious schools should be treated the same as any other private school.





I am perfectly fine with them choosing private schools, they just shouldn't expect tbe rest of us to subsidize it.

The problem becomes the government deciding which families are qualified for aid or not. I do not believe the government is capable. If one can, all must. It is the same argument I've made in many areas. Equal protection.

 

[Ringtone]

Because we are only required to pay for a public school education, not a Cadillac education. Using the same argument why should people with no kids pay?

Once again, you give an unresponsive answer to the thrust of the question asked you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They are perfectly free to do so. They just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize it

Yet I subsidize the anti-American corruption your sort institute in government schooling.

 

[Ringtone]

They are perfectly free to do so. They just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize it

Translation: the former Soviet Union's fallacious doctrine of separation.

 

[Ringtone]

That is a double edged sword. Look at the post I responded to, Sartre.

What post number is that response in, Meister?

 

[Meister]

What post number is that response in, Meister?

#7

 

[Ringtone]

I live here, and haven't watched local news or paid attention to it, but from this article if correct, it just seems silly to me, not to include religious schools if they meet all requirements.

It's not like the parents have a local school to send them to, provided by the gvt, and not like they are rejecting that neighborhood public school and want to put their kids in religious schools instead and take tax dollars away from their local schools?

This just seems wrong to me.... there must be more to the story that I need to find out.

From the article:

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.​

​

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.​

The Court declared that the discrimination against the religious private schools was unconstitutional. Hence, one should be free to choose a nearby, qualifying religious private school as well.

​

 

[struth]

No government money should go to a school which restricts or limits its enrolment. If you have to be a member of a religion to attend the school, or if admittance is restricted by race or whether your parents are gay, these schools should not receive government money.

Public funds for public schools.
"

agreed

 

[struth]

No government money should go to a school which restricts or limits its enrolment. If you have to be a member of a religion to attend the school, or if admittance is restricted by race or whether your parents are gay, these schools should not receive government money.

Public funds for public schools.
"

ok…but we aren’t talking about that

 

[Ringtone]

agreed

Why do you agree with that?

See posts #96.

 

[Ringtone]

Nonsense.

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions




The Library of Congress tracks the historic list of overruled Supreme Court cases in its report, The Constitution Annotated. As of 2020, the court had overruled its own precedents in an estimated 232 cases since 1810, says the library.May 3, 2022
A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions
https://constitutioncenter.org › blog › a-short-list-of-overt..


List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_overruled_Uni...
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. ... The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is ...
‎Constitutional · ‎Article One · ‎Statutory · ‎Habeas




You wouldn't embarrass yourself so if you had a real education.

While you're right to point out that stare decisis is not unassailable—after all, Roe v. Wade was just overturned by Dobbs v Jackson—the Court didn't overrule stare decisis in this case. There has never been a precisely identical question addressed by the Court; however, Everson v. The Board of Education (1947) serves as the operative stare decisis.

In Everson, the plaintive argued that a New Jersey statute which reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to private schools, secular and parochial, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In its decidendi the Court held that (1) the statute did not violate the Establishment Clause and that (2) the Establishment Clause applied, not just to the federal government, but also to state and local governments via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the first time the Court applied the Establishment Clause to the governments of the several states.

That part of the ruling was absolutely correct!

The political left, for example, has assailed the right to keep and bear arms at the state level for decades. It’s a good thing when the federal courts require the several states to uphold the Bill of Rights as well, and there was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about New Jersey allocating funds for transporting students to parochial schools, just like it allocated funds to transport students to other private schools and public schools. The plaintive was trying to persuade the Court to exclude students of religious faith from public services provided for all students.

The Court’s expressly stated ratio decidendi on the question of the case was given in two parts.

The Court held that because the Establishment Clause does not override the Free Exercise Clause “New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual . . . because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.” In this instance, Justice Black, writing for the majority, meant the general government services associated with things like public sewage, parks, highways, education, transportation; fire and police protection, and so on. The First Amendment “requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers.” In other words, the New Jersey statute didn’t provide any special benefits to religious students to which they weren’t entitled as citizens.

 

[Ringtone]

The problem becomes the government deciding which families are qualified for aid or not. I do not believe the government is capable. If one can, all must. It is the same argument I've made in many areas. Equal protection.

So why do you oppose universal school choice?