Supreme Court Doing Some Work!

[Lewkowski]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/polit...ols/index.html

"(CNN)The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life, a trend bolstered by the addition of three of former President Donald Trump's nominees.

This is both in line with founders intent and the plain reading of the constitution. A religious belief does not in anyway provide a person or organization with less rights than if they did not have that religious belief. There is no freedom from religion, there is freedom of religion and somehow the left has played mental gymnastics around this idea to pervert the idea.

[Loki]

Can't wait to see your take on the public funding of madrassahs.

[Lewkowski]

Can't wait to see your take on the public funding of madrassahs.

Why would that be different than say a Catholic school?

[Loki]

Where were you when the same people shouting religious liberty today were pushing to stop mosques from being built on private land?

[LittleFuzzy]

This is both in line with founders intent and the plain reading of the constitution. A religious belief does not in anyway provide a person or organization with less rights than if they did not have that religious belief. There is no freedom from religion, there is freedom of religion

Bullshit! The ruling goes against stare decisis jurisprudence. It goes against states rights jurisprudence. And it goes against original intent jurisprudence. This is straight up conservative judicial activism. The founders intent explicitly denied and objected to state funding for religious institutions. That's a straight-up establishment violation, it provides government imprimatur to religion. They demanded public education*. They didn't have a problem with private or religious schools but (accurately) considered them insufficient. They did not call for public funding of religious instruction. When they passed laws requiring (as an example) one square mile in every town be set aside for education that was not to go to churches, even if those churches also maintained classrooms on their property, as many did. Because that would have been government establishment of religion.

*in fairness, many/most did still consider religious instruction to be an integral part of education, public or private, with the Bible as the philosophical basis of morality, and would have expected it to be taught in the public schools

[Lewkowski]

Where were you when the same people shouting religious liberty today were pushing to stop mosques from being built on private land?

You can't stop someone from building something on private land (well eco terrorists try all the time). Was there a law passed? A court ruling?

[Lewkowski]

Bullshit! The ruling goes against stare decisis jurisprudence. It goes against states rights jurisprudence. And it goes against original intent jurisprudence. This is straight up conservative judicial activism. The founders intent explicitly denied and objected to state funding for religious institutions. That's a straight-up establishment violation, it provides government imprimatur to religion. They demanded public education*. They didn't have a problem with private or religious schools but (accurately) considered them insufficient. They did not call for public funding of religious instruction. When they passed laws requiring (as an example) one square mile in every town be set aside for education that was not to go to churches, even if those churches also maintained classrooms on their property, as many did. Because that would have been government establishment of religion.

*in fairness, many/most did still consider religious instruction to be an integral part of education, public or private, with the Bible as the philosophical basis of morality, and would have expected it to be taught in the public schools

Just all together, no.

1. We've talked about this before but precedent is bull shit. A past court ruling doesn't bind the Supreme Court. Otherwise a bad ruling can never be overturned. People bitch and whine about this all the time but it is mere tradition and not law that binds the hands of future justices. But speaking of which since now THIS is the jurisprudence you would now want no court to overrule this precedent, yeah or no? See how retarded this is?

2. It isn't judicial activism, as the 1A was not intended to discriminate specifically against religious belief. Now if the court ruled "Maine was wrong because it was a Christian based education but states could still outlaw Muslim educational intuitions" THAT would violate the establishment clause.

3. You have to look at what this actually is - which is an educational institution that happens to be religious and provides some religious instruction.

4. This isn't even a particularly out of the ordinary ruling. See Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer which was 7-2.

[wiggin]

Bullshit! The ruling goes against stare decisis jurisprudence. It goes against states rights jurisprudence. And it goes against original intent jurisprudence. This is straight up conservative judicial activism. The founders intent explicitly denied and objected to state funding for religious institutions. That's a straight-up establishment violation, it provides government imprimatur to religion. They demanded public education*. They didn't have a problem with private or religious schools but (accurately) considered them insufficient. They did not call for public funding of religious instruction. When they passed laws requiring (as an example) one square mile in every town be set aside for education that was not to go to churches, even if those churches also maintained classrooms on their property, as many did. Because that would have been government establishment of religion.

*in fairness, many/most did still consider religious instruction to be an integral part of education, public or private, with the Bible as the philosophical basis of morality, and would have expected it to be taught in the public schools

LF, one genuine question because I haven't followed this all that closely. I think it's obviously reasonable to argue that state funding of religious schools gets into very murky territory wrt the establishment clause and should be avoided absent some pretty strict restrictions. But the countervailing argument about this Maine law didn't seem obviously wrong to me either - funding private schooling at specifically secular but NOT religious schools seems to smack of discrimination, no?

Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to tell Maine that they have to suck it up and provide public schooling for everyone and not rely on a patchwork of private (secular) schools to fill the gaps in their school system? That is, say they cannot fund religious private schools, but they also can't fund secular private schools to the exclusion of religious schools.

I assume you followed this way more closely than I did and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[LittleFuzzy]

LF, one genuine question because I haven't followed this all that closely. I think it's obviously reasonable to argue that state funding of religious schools gets into very murky territory wrt the establishment clause and should be avoided absent some pretty strict restrictions. But the countervailing argument about this Maine law didn't seem obviously wrong to me either - funding private schooling at specifically secular but NOT religious schools seems to smack of discrimination, no?

It is a form of discrimination, yes. A legal form. All kinds of discrimination are legal. Consider libel and slander laws. They discriminate against those who knowingly use falsehood to damage another's reputation compared to those who unknowingly do so. Laws requiring truthful advertising discriminate against advertisers by placing more onerous requirements on them than others just exercising free speech and spreading via word of mouth. Discrimination is a problem when it is invidious and/or without due process of law, when it serves no rational basis or (in certain categories) when it isn't strictly necessary. This hits every requirement for discrimination to be allowed, even legally, constitutionally, and ethically/philosophically required.

Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to tell Maine that they have to suck it up and provide public schooling for everyone and not rely on a patchwork of private (secular) schools to fill the gaps in their school system?

THAT would also be judicial activism and rather beyond the issue before the court or its authority.

I assume you followed this way more closely than I did and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I haven't followed this particular case. I am well educated in establishment jurisprudence and law in general, though, and did make a study (now somewhat dated) on the general topic of vouchers and religious institutions back in college.

Just all together, no.

I cite those three specifically not because I champion them but because those are the three banners of conservative jurisprudence, the dominant standards and theories which the justices behind this opinion constantly trumpet and champion in their rulings and dissents. And you're the one who constantly claims to hate flip-floppers and people not sticking to their principles.

2. It isn't judicial activism, as the 1A was not intended to discriminate specifically against religious belief. Now if the court ruled "Maine was wrong because it was a Christian based education but states could still outlaw Muslim educational intuitions" THAT would violate the establishment clause.

You're getting four different concepts confused there. Also that would violate both establishment AND free exercise. You don't need to explicitly discriminate between religious groups to violate the establishment clause. You could declare EVERY RELIGION AND CULT known to man or that mankind might follow in the future to be formal religions recognized by the US and it's still clearly an establishment violation. Why? Because discrimination is not the plain text of the 1st amendment, it is not the intent of the 1st amendment, and it's not even the rationale behind the intent of the 1st amendment. The establishment clause is, clearly, about establishment. It allows no relationship betwixt the government and any or all religions. Why? Because the founders recognized from history that nothing good comes from it. It has two inevitable consequences. Government interference in peoples exercise of religion, and religious institutions interference in the exercise of governance. Setting a foundation for either or both is intolerable. Power, once granted, continues to accrue and gets used. Another inevitability in the eyes of the founders and their examination of history. And your own, with your constant harping on the need to limit government.

3. You have to look at what this actually is - which is an educational institution that happens to be religious and provides some religious instruction.

It is part of a church budgetary polity and is advancing that church. Notably different from your cited Lutheran v Comer (or similar rulings cited therein, like McDaniel v Paty. Should a church engage in a recycling drive and turn in a bunch of cans and plastic, it is entitled to the reimbursement generally issued for recycling those materials. Its actions had nothing whatsoever to do with the religion and create no relationship between the religion and the state. McDaniel serving in a party convention, as an elector, or other such office, is not an establishment issue because, despite the fact that he was a minister, he was just a person, not a religion himself. Individual private conscious is what the Founders trusted and relied on the most. In a similar fashion and as a I pointed out when I did my study on this back in college, if the state just gave the money flat out to the parents, that would also avoid any establishment issue because it creates no relationship betwixt the state and any or all churches. It's just individuals following their private conscious after the state has removed itself from the environment. But that's not here. This is a check from the government being given to specific religious organizations to propagate those specific religions' influence and teachings. It makes the state a sponsor of those religions and it doesn't matter if the decision as to which religions are sponsored in this way is in the hands of individuals acting out their private conscious because the state is still the one doing the sponsoring. Its inevitable result is the increase of any gap between more popular and less popular religions via government funding. A mechanism for government power aggrandizing various religions vis a vis other religions. [b]The exact thing the Founders were afraid of and sought to avoid[/i].

[Lewkowski]

In a similar fashion and as a I pointed out when I did my study on this back in college, if the state just gave the money flat out to the parents, that would also avoid any establishment issue because it creates no relationship betwixt the state and any or all churches. It's just individuals following their private conscious after the state has removed itself from the environment. But that's not here. This is a check from the government being given to specific religious organizations to propagate those specific religions' influence and teachings. It makes the state a sponsor of those religions and it doesn't matter if the decision as to which religions are sponsored in this way is in the hands of individuals acting out their private conscious because the state is still the one doing the sponsoring. Its inevitable result is the increase of any gap between more popular and less popular religions via government funding. A mechanism for government power aggrandizing various religions vis a vis other religions. [b]The exact thing the Founders were afraid of and sought to avoid[/i].

This is a distinction without difference. Government giving money with strings attached "must be used to educate child" is not in practice any different that what was going on here. The state is not raising one religion over another. It is not requiring a religious practice. It is not discriminating against a religious practice. The 1A is just as important in defending against a specific religion as it is in defending any religion or no religion. A school that chooses to teach religious beliefs alongside the state mandated educational curriculum is fine, and that's why the twice as many justices supported the decision as opposed to dissenting.

"The establishment clause is, clearly, about establishment. It allows no relationship betwixt the government and any or all religions."

The fuck? "The IRS recognized your church as a charity organization... note can't do that because that's a relationship!" "Oh my the state recognizes this church owns this property, RelaTioNShiP"

[Loki]

This is a distinction without difference.

Only if you don't care about centuries of jurisprudence. Like the current Supreme Court.

[LittleFuzzy]

This is a distinction without difference. Government giving money with strings attached "must be used to educate child" is not in practice any different that what was going on here.

Whether a man is shot and killed in a robbery or by the police responding to the robbery is also a distinction without a difference. The government giving the cop a uniform is not in practice any different that what was going on there, right?

The state is not raising one religion over another.

Again, the 1st amendment does not mention discrimination anywhere. It talks about establishment and free exercise. You're quite the literalist when it comes to the 2nd amendment but suddenly the 1st is just a metaphor? Ridiculous.

It is not requiring a religious practice.

But it is giving the government's stamp to those who are requiring religious practices. It is providing funding which is used to strengthen those churches. Even if it were providing the same funding to literally every church in the country, it would still be using public resources explicitly to increase religious strength. Which is an establishment violation.

It is not discriminating against a religious practice.

It is, actually. Against any religion who do not include K-12 education components in their religious instruction. But it's irrelevant because the establishment clause is not about discrimination. It is about linking government power and any kind of religious authority. Since you insist on trying to make discrimination claims though, I will also point out that since the churches aren't taxed, you are actually discriminating against public and private non-religious educational institutions who are not funded as fully at a net level.

The 1A is just as important in defending against a specific religion as it is in defending any religion or no religion.

It is. And that has no relevance here at all.

A school that chooses to teach religious beliefs alongside the state mandated educational curriculum is fine, and that's why the twice as many justices supported the decision as opposed to dissenting.

As you said earlier, justices can decide wrongly. In particular they WILL decide wrongly when they choose to put conservative politics ahead of their jurisprudence.

[Lewkowski]

Your argument boils down to government having any sort of business arrangement with a religion as violating the establishment clause. That's retarded and opens the abuse of discrimination against individuals and organizations simply for being religious. If the Catholic Church wanted to compete with Lockheed Martin it wouldn't be establishing a religion or establishing a state religion, that's just nonsense.

For schooling the state is not providing a "stamp of approval" for the religious components just the educational ones. I'm fairly certain you can somehow walk your way anywhere with your pretzel logic, what's next that charitable donations to church's shouldn't count as a tax write off because that's the state "endorsing a religion?"

[LittleFuzzy]

Your argument boils down to government having any sort of business arrangement with a religion as violating the establishment clause.

Not so. Only if it advances that religion. Religious education includes instruction in that religion and time practicing that faith. I've attended a christian school, thank you. It included time being preached at in the chapel. Prosyletizing on the government's dime would very much be a violation of the establishment clause. Charity work that requires you pray or get preached at to receive the charity is similarly a violation.

If the Catholic Church wanted to compete with Lockheed Martin it wouldn't be establishing a religion or establishing a state religion, that's just nonsense.

If the Catholic Church sold the product as being efficacious due to being prayed over, constructed with components which were ritually blessed, etc. than yes, that contract would be an act of establishment. So would a PR campaign describing it as smiting our enemies with the Lord's wrath.

For schooling the state is not providing a "stamp of approval" for the religious components just the educational ones. I'm fairly certain you can somehow walk your way anywhere with your pretzel logic,

If you can't get the one without the other, if they are intermixed and those put into it are not free to opt out without coercion or pressure, then you are inevitably stamping both. If you can't experience the one and not the other, you have no business pretending they're not a joint arrangement.

what's next that charitable donations to church's shouldn't count as a tax write off because that's the state "endorsing a religion?"

I addressed that already.