The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[happy-go_vol]

Seems like tax money is going to have drag queen story time...

Gator has no problem with that, it's those dang Christians.

 

[lawgator1]

Most religious schools are accredited. And it’s amazing, their students actually get accepted to colleges. Many with scholarships.

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/regprivschl.pdf

The state legislature sets the standards for quality or designates an appropriate executive agency to do so, just like they do now.

If that comes into conflict with a religious belief then it would be examined under the free exercise clause rubric.

Is your google broke?

Private School Approval | Department of Education

You guys are missing the point. Its not based on what these charter schools look like now, its that givne these rulings that continuously both allow a mxture of church and state AND keep allowing religious concerns to be prioritized over standard educational ones, it is a matter of time before a faith-based charter school complains that its religious message is interfered with by the state's educational requirements.

Now that we know, as a result of this opinion, that it is unconstitutional to restrict use of such schools to offer educational services to those who can't readily access public schools, can you not see that it is a hop skip and a jump for parents and a church to say, "We want our parishioners kids to go to our charter school EVEN IF we don't meet state standards for public schools because our religious work is paramount to the standards"?

And then what do you do? These rulings are hemming them in.

But then again, let's be honest. This case was begun, and selected for advancement, by certain groups hiding behind religion as a reason to allow kids to be segregated from public schools, which are (ironically enough) desegregated. These battles are chosen and framed to create these issues in such a manner as to create opportunities to undo by backhand those things which had been done overtly in the 60s and 70s, and which frustrate those who want a return to a 1950s America.

 

[Sea Ray]

You guys are missing the point. Its not based on what these charter schools look like now, its that givne these rulings that continuously both allow a mxture of church and state AND keep allowing religious concerns to be prioritized over standard educational ones, it is a matter of time before a faith-based charter school complains that its religious message is interfered with by the state's educational requirements.

Now that we know, as a result of this opinion, that it is unconstitutional to restrict use of such schools to offer educational services to those who can't readily access public schools, can you not see that it is a hop skip and a jump for parents and a church to say, "We want our parishioners kids to go to our charter school EVEN IF we don't meet state standards for public schools because our religious work is paramount to the standards"?

And then what do you do? These rulings are hemming them in.

But then again, let's be honest. This case was begun, and selected for advancement, by certain groups hiding behind religion as a reason to allow kids to be segregated from public schools, which are (ironically enough) desegregated. These battles are chosen and framed to create these issues in such a manner as to create opportunities to undo by backhand those things which had been done overtly in the 60s and 70s, and which frustrate those who want a return to a 1950s America.

This decision was never meant to solve all those issues you raised. Those will have to wait for future court cases if they arise. What's clear now is that if a school is being discriminated against solely due to its religion then that is discrimination based upon religion and that goes against our civil rights laws

 

[hog88]

You guys are missing the point. Its not based on what these charter schools look like now, its that givne these rulings that continuously both allow a mxture of church and state AND keep allowing religious concerns to be prioritized over standard educational ones, it is a matter of time before a faith-based charter school complains that its religious message is interfered with by the state's educational requirements.

Now that we know, as a result of this opinion, that it is unconstitutional to restrict use of such schools to offer educational services to those who can't readily access public schools, can you not see that it is a hop skip and a jump for parents and a church to say, "We want our parishioners kids to go to our charter school EVEN IF we don't meet state standards for public schools because our religious work is paramount to the standards"?

And then what do you do? These rulings are hemming them in.

But then again, let's be honest. This case was begun, and selected for advancement, by certain groups hiding behind religion as a reason to allow kids to be segregated from public schools, which are (ironically enough) desegregated. These battles are chosen and framed to create these issues in such a manner as to create opportunities to undo by backhand those things which had been done overtly in the 60s and 70s, and which frustrate those who want a return to a 1950s America.

Always a race angle with you huh?

 

[RockyTop85]

You guys are missing the point. Its not based on what these charter schools look like now, its that givne these rulings that continuously both allow a mxture of church and state AND keep allowing religious concerns to be prioritized over standard educational ones, it is a matter of time before a faith-based charter school complains that its religious message is interfered with by the state's educational requirements.

Now that we know, as a result of this opinion, that it is unconstitutional to restrict use of such schools to offer educational services to those who can't readily access public schools, can you not see that it is a hop skip and a jump for parents and a church to say, "We want our parishioners kids to go to our charter school EVEN IF we don't meet state standards for public schools because our religious work is paramount to the standards"?

And then what do you do? These rulings are hemming them in.

But then again, let's be honest. This case was begun, and selected for advancement, by certain groups hiding behind religion as a reason to allow kids to be segregated from public schools, which are (ironically enough) desegregated. These battles are chosen and framed to create these issues in such a manner as to create opportunities to undo by backhand those things which had been done overtly in the 60s and 70s, and which frustrate those who want a return to a 1950s America.

I do think I missed your point, but that’s because there have already been dozens of free exercise cases that draw a distinction between laws of general application that incidentally burden religion and intentional discrimination. In my opinion, based on these cases, the parade of horribles is not merely a hop, skip, and jump away.

And, even if it were, I’m not sure parents deciding to offer their own children a substandard education is something I’m really stressed about.

 

[Jxn Vol]

You guys are missing the point. Its not based on what these charter schools look like now, its that givne these rulings that continuously both allow a mxture of church and state AND keep allowing religious concerns to be prioritized over standard educational ones, it is a matter of time before a faith-based charter school complains that its religious message is interfered with by the state's educational requirements.

Now that we know, as a result of this opinion, that it is unconstitutional to restrict use of such schools to offer educational services to those who can't readily access public schools, can you not see that it is a hop skip and a jump for parents and a church to say, "We want our parishioners kids to go to our charter school EVEN IF we don't meet state standards for public schools because our religious work is paramount to the standards"?

And then what do you do? These rulings are hemming them in.

But then again, let's be honest. This case was begun, and selected for advancement, by certain groups hiding behind religion as a reason to allow kids to be segregated from public schools, which are (ironically enough) desegregated. These battles are chosen and framed to create these issues in such a manner as to create opportunities to undo by backhand those things which had been done overtly in the 60s and 70s, and which frustrate those who want a return to a 1950s America.

In TN the taxes for a child’s education stays with the child. the parents get a nice debit card that can only be used for school. A private school chooses to admit the child based on their qualifications. The money is the parents. Not the government.

 

[lawgator1]

In TN the taxes for a child’s education stays with the child. the parents get a nice debit card that can only be used for school. A private school chooses to admit the child based on their qualifications. The money is the parents. Not the government.

Not the issue. The issue is religious based schools getting taxpayer dollars to fund "education." It'd a matter of time based on these rulings until someone says that if they can send them to a qualified Catholic school then they ought to be able to send them to an Islamic school, or a strip mall Evangelical school, and regardless of whether it's qualified or not, because, meh, religious liberty.

 

[Orangeburst]

I thought today was Abortion is Outlawed Day...fact is it is being left up to the states....the way any matters of Constitution are stated. And I am sure the liberal states will be more lenient and conservative states less tolerant..
But of course the radical states will not lose anything, but to suggest that liberals from liberal enclaves are concerned with abortion rights in conservative states is just fallacy. When one is narcassisict enough to have an abortion.

Hip hip hooray

 

[Jxn Vol]

Not the issue. The issue is religious based schools getting taxpayer dollars to fund "education." It'd a matter of time based on these rulings until someone says that if they can send them to a qualified Catholic school then they ought to be able to send them to an Islamic school, or a strip mall Evangelical school, and regardless of whether it's qualified or not, because, meh, religious liberty.

They aren’t getting tax payer dollars from the government. The parents are. They can choose to spend it or not. Kinda like a choice.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

BREAKING: California man, 26, pleads not guilty to attempting to Assassinate US Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh

The man accused of attempting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh pleaded not guilty on Wednesday.

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, was arrested outside Kavanaugh's home in Maryland earlier this month armed with a gun, knife and burglary tools.

During his arraignment on Wednesday at the Southern Division Courthouse, in Greenbelt, Maryland, Roske pleaded not guilty.

His trial is set to begin on August 23, and if convicted, Roske faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Nicholas John Roske pleads not guilty to attempting to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh | Daily Mail Online

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Trump: 'Go to the reporter' to find Leaker of Supreme Court draft opinion

Former President Donald Trump suggested that the Supreme Court "go to the reporter" who penned the article about a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade if it's serious about finding the source of the leak.

The initial Politico report published May 2 was co-authored by reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, serving as unprecedented insight into the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

"The U.S. Supreme Court MUST find, reveal, and punish the 'Leaker.' Very easy to do — Go to the reporter who received the leak," Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Wednesday.

Additionally, Republican lawmakers and conservative media figures were outraged by the leak and demanded the person responsible for it be held accountable for their actions by law enforcement.

The marshal of the Supreme Court was also tasked by Chief Justice John Roberts in May to investigate the origins of the draft leak, which have culminated with efforts requiring the court's clerks to sign legal affidavits and request their cellphones in an attempt to uncover one or more individuals responsible for the leak.

Trump: 'Go to the reporter' to find leaker of Supreme Court draft opinion

 

[TRUEFANVol]

Trump: 'Go to the reporter' to find Leaker of Supreme Court draft opinion

Former President Donald Trump suggested that the Supreme Court "go to the reporter" who penned the article about a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade if it's serious about finding the source of the leak.

The initial Politico report published May 2 was co-authored by reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, serving as unprecedented insight into the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

"The U.S. Supreme Court MUST find, reveal, and punish the 'Leaker.' Very easy to do — Go to the reporter who received the leak," Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Wednesday.

Additionally, Republican lawmakers and conservative media figures were outraged by the leak and demanded the person responsible for it be held accountable for their actions by law enforcement.

The marshal of the Supreme Court was also tasked by Chief Justice John Roberts in May to investigate the origins of the draft leak, which have culminated with efforts requiring the court's clerks to sign legal affidavits and request their cellphones in an attempt to uncover one or more individuals responsible for the leak.

Trump: 'Go to the reporter' to find leaker of Supreme Court draft opinion

Solid source

 

[Jxn Vol]

BREAKING: California man, 26, pleads not guilty to attempting to Assassinate US Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh

The man accused of attempting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh pleaded not guilty on Wednesday.

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, was arrested outside Kavanaugh's home in Maryland earlier this month armed with a gun, knife and burglary tools.

During his arraignment on Wednesday at the Southern Division Courthouse, in Greenbelt, Maryland, Roske pleaded not guilty.

His trial is set to begin on August 23, and if convicted, Roske faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Nicholas John Roske pleads not guilty to attempting to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh | Daily Mail Online

I’m betting this guy’s government handler will be demoted.

 

[Sea Ray]

The reporter won't reveal his source. It's not that easy

 

[Boston Vol]

 

[lawgator1]

Bitter dissent and criticism of dissent by the majority. The majority is pure GOP talking points and thinly reasoned. They ignore completely the reality of what's going on out there.

 

[theFallGuy]

Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the association, told the justices during oral arguments last November that his clients are seeking “nothing more than their fellow citizens in 43 other states already enjoy.”

“Carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right. It is not some extraordinary action that requires an extraordinary demonstration of need,” he said at the time.

 

[volinbham]

Bitter dissent and criticism of dissent by the majority. The majority is pure GOP talking points and thinly reasoned. They ignore completely the reality of what's going on out there.

LOL

 

[bamawriter]

Bitter dissent and criticism of dissent by the majority. The majority is pure GOP talking points and thinly reasoned. They ignore completely the reality of what's going on out there.

Alito's concurrence specifically addresses "what's going on out there."

But, even if "what's going on out there" justifies NY's law (which seems to run counter to common sense), that is an issue to be addressed by Congress, not the judiciary.

 

[lawgator1]

Alito's concurrence specifically addresses "what's going on out there."

But, even if "what's going on out there" justifies NY's law (which seems to run counter to common sense), that is an issue to be addressed by Congress, not the judiciary.

You guys just won't be happy until everyone in the country open carries at every event, will you?

 

[bamawriter]

You guys just won't be happy until everyone in the country open carries at every event, will you?

I'm personally anti-gun, so no.

 

[distrovol]

You guys just won't be happy until everyone in the country open carries at every event, will you?

We would live in a much more polite society if that were the case.

 

[DC_Vol]

This should have a material impact on Maryland’s onerous conceal carry laws as well.

 

[DC_Vol]

You guys just won't be happy until everyone in the country open carries at every event, will you?

Salty.

 

[theFallGuy]

Supreme Court says GOP lawmakers can defend North Carolina voter ID law | The Hill