SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

What's up today?

Moderators: plunderer, Bernie the union guy

Post Reply
User avatar
will_from_chicago
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Northwest Indiana

SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by will_from_chicago »

SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional. From CNN:
Supreme Court opens door to state funding for religious schools
Devan Cole byline
By Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole, CNN

Washington (CNN)In a ruling that will open the door to more public funding for religious education, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of parents in Montana seeking to use a state scholarship program to send their children to religious schools.

The court said that a Montana tax credit program that directed money to private schools could not exclude religious schools.
The 5-4 ruling was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's four conservative justices.

"A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Tuesday's opinion is a huge win for supporters of school choice programs, a hallmark of the Trump administration, and it will also encourage other states to push for similar programs.
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" - Hillel

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

Anti Constitutional biased bullshit.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

Libertas wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:42 am
Anti Constitutional biased bullshit.
If you award a scholarship program to a student then the student should be able to choose where to spend that money as long as it is an accredited school and the money is used for the designated purpose of education.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

The hits keep on coming...cons find out rump allows putin to kill our soldiers and they say NOTHING...amazing

User avatar
Sam Lefthand
Board Emeritus
Posts: 14035
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Sam Lefthand »

This must be the ruling Libertas was talking about in the Supreme Court rules consumer regulator structure unconstitutional thread.

Here's the ruling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_g314.pdf

The title CNN wrote is off, the court did not rule that the State's ban is unconstitutional and strike it down. What they ruled is that if they decide to fund private schools at all, then they have to include religious schools in that program.

That is consistent with the US Constitution, and many past rulings. The solution for Montana is simple, stop funding private schools.

Since Montana has it written in their Constitution that they must not fund religious schools, and the US Constitution says if they fund private schools they must fund religious schools, then the issue is ripe for a law suit in their state courts to effectively extend the ban by court ruling they have in their State Constitution to not funding private schools at all.

Which suites me. :D

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

Nah, I will stick with RBG, if she says bullshit, then it is bullshit...where am I?


In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the scholarship program in its entirety, rather than just restricting its benefits for religious schools, meant that the state was not discriminating against those with religious views.

“Under that decree, secular and sectarian schools alike are ineligible for benefits, so the decision cannot be said to entail differential treatment based on petitioners’ religion,” Ginsburg wrote. “Put somewhat differently, petitioners argue that the Free Exercise Clause requires a State to treat institutions and people neutrally when doling out a benefit—and neutrally is how Montana treats them in the wake of the state court’s decision.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor relied on similar reasoning in a separate dissent. She added that the top court had “never before held unconstitutional government action that merely failed to benefit religious exercise.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by Kagan, wrote that the “majority’s approach and its conclusion in this case, I fear, risk the kind of entanglement and conflict that the Religion Clauses are intended to prevent.”

The case is Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/supreme ... ships.html

Let me help some of you, there is no instance, not one, not ever, where RBG will be wrong and cons will be right...never.

User avatar
will_from_chicago
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Northwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by will_from_chicago »

I think that this is going to impact public education in a negative way. I have been in several underfunded schools, where many of the students lack supplies and rely on school-funded lunch and breakfast.

I think that states are going to have an additional burden in figuring out how to comply with the ruling. So, my question is what are the limits. If a religious school states that those who do not agree with their faith should not have the same rights as they do, will nonbelievers and those of other faiths have a right to object?
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" - Hillel

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

will_from_chicago wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:16 pm
I think that this is going to impact public education in a negative way. I have been in several underfunded schools, where many of the students lack supplies and rely on school-funded lunch and breakfast.

I think that states are going to have an additional burden in figuring out how to comply with the ruling. So, my question is what are the limits. If a religious school states that those who do not agree with their faith should not have the same rights as they do, will nonbelievers and those of other faiths have a right to object?
It is a partisan bullshit ruling and will be harmful as will almost all rulings for the next 20 years because people couldnt trust Hillary :twisted:

User avatar
will_from_chicago
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Northwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by will_from_chicago »

Here are some thoughts from a few concerned parties. From the Huffington Post:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme- ... 145cc1309b

Both public school choice and church–state separation advocates rang the alarm on the potential impact of this case. Public school choice advocates have long stood against voucher and tax credit programs, which they say serve to drain funds from public schools. When students leave public schools to attend private schools through these programs, per-pupil funding follows them. However, the onerous costs of maintaining a school system remain.

“Make no mistake, if a majority of the justices side with the petitioners, the Supreme Court will be responsible for unleashing a virtual earthquake in this country that threatens both religious liberty and public education,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the nation’s major teachers unions, said in a statement about the case in January.

Critics said they feared the court’s ruling could mean that states would no longer be allowed to maintain rules that bar public funding for religious institutions, opening a Pandora’s box that could unravel long-held protections. They also said they feared the case would expand public funding for schools that openly discriminate.

A 2017 HuffPost investigation found that at least 14% of religious schools participating in voucher or tax credit programs maintain policies that advertise anti-gay policies or bar LGBTQ students and staff from admission and employment. A more recent HuffPost investigation found that some of these schools go so far as to push LGBTQ children to attend conversion therapy.

HuffPost found that of the 13 schools that originally signed up to participate in the Montana tax credit program, four had anti-LGBTQ policies on the books, including the school at the center of the case. The case was initiated by a mother named Kendra Espinoza, a mother who wanted to use the program to help pay for her daughters to attend a local Christian school.

“This has the potential to nullify three-fourths of states’ religious freedoms protections. It could force taxpayers to fund discrimination,” Rachel Laser, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told HuffPost in January. “It’s very concerning to divert public funds to private religious schools. We all know our public schools are already hurting across the country.”
My district pays less than many others and has trouble attracting licensed teachers. (Several of my colleagues have emergency licenses to teach.)

On a personal note, as someone who respects the rights of the LGBTQ community, should I be forced to support schools that are biased against people I know and care and about and would perhaps push a child into conversion therapy?
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" - Hillel

User avatar
Sam Lefthand
Board Emeritus
Posts: 14035
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Sam Lefthand »

Libertas wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:07 pm
Nah, I will stick with RBG, if she says bullshit, then it is bullshit...where am I?






https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/supreme ... ships.html

Let me help some of you, there is no instance, not one, not ever, where RBG will be wrong and cons will be right...never.
Libertas, Ginsburg and Kagan's argument are basically the same as mine.

The court ruled "The judgment of the Montana Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered."

What that means is it now goes back to the Montana Supreme courts, where all the court has to do is clean up language of their previous ruling a bit, but which comes to the same result. The state cannot have a tax credit scholarship program which funds private schools under both their state Constitution and the US Constitution at the same time. The state constitution ban still stands.

Ginsburg and Kagan's argument is that it has already been done, so why change it, the conservatives want the same result but want the language that gives that result cleaned up. There is actually very little disagreement here.

Which suites me fine.

User avatar
Sam Lefthand
Board Emeritus
Posts: 14035
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Sam Lefthand »

will_from_chicago wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Here are some thoughts from a few concerned parties. From the Huffington Post:



My district pays less than many others and has trouble attracting licensed teachers. (Several of my colleagues have emergency licenses to teach.)

On a personal note, as someone who respects the rights of the LGBTQ community, should I be forced to support schools that are biased against people I know and care and about and would perhaps push a child into conversion therapy?
Will, the ruling is consistent with what you want. In fact it reaches further, they cannot fund private schools of any kind at all. Which means all of their school funding will now go to public schools.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

will_from_chicago wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:16 pm
I think that this is going to impact public education in a negative way. I have been in several underfunded schools, where many of the students lack supplies and rely on school-funded lunch and breakfast.

I think that states are going to have an additional burden in figuring out how to comply with the ruling. So, my question is what are the limits. If a religious school states that those who do not agree with their faith should not have the same rights as they do, will nonbelievers and those of other faiths have a right to object?
It’s not all that complicated. If a student and their parents decide to attend a private religious school then they also agree to respect the rules of the institution. I attend a baptist university for a couple of semesters. I had to attend chapel. I had to respect other rules. Nobody forced me to pray nor did they insist that I believe one way or another. All that was required was to respect the fact that they believed that way. I am not Jewish or Catholic but if I find myself in one of their services, I handle myself respectfully.

It’s the students choice and the parents choice. If they feel the need to object, they can always select another institution more in line with their beliefs.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

Sam Lefthand wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:12 pm
Will, the ruling is consistent with what you want. In fact it reaches further, they cannot fund private schools of any kind at all. Which means all of their school funding will now go to public schools.
There are tax breaks for college students who go to private religious institutions. I don’t see why you can’t do something similar in K-12. Its all about education.

User avatar
ProfessorX
Board Emeritus
Posts: 17826
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Location: Sunny South Florida

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by ProfessorX »

Funding religious indoctrination with state funds violates separation of church and state.
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

ProfessorX wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:41 pm
Funding religious indoctrination with state funds violates separation of church and state.
Exactly...of course.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfessorX wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:41 pm
Funding religious indoctrination with state funds violates separation of church and state.
So would you do away with all tax breaks that directly or indirectly benefit religious organizations? Would you do away with all payments of any kind to religious organizations?

User avatar
ProfessorX
Board Emeritus
Posts: 17826
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Location: Sunny South Florida

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by ProfessorX »

The tax exemption of churches has been a notorious problem, historically. I certainly would argue the churches that host open political rallies for political candidates should have their tax exempt status reviewed, and possibly removed.

As for what I just stated, well, once again, I agree with the ACLU's position.

Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Fund Religious Education: How Today’s Supreme Court Decision Further Erodes the Separation of Church and State
https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-lib ... and-state/

If you want to subject your child to brainwashing and religious indoctrination, such as creationism, fine - do it on your dime. I believe science, not theology, should be taught in public schools. If you don't want your child learning science like evolution, do it on your own dime, or homeschool.

The government should not be funding anti-science indoctrination. (See also: "conversion therapy," the anti-vax/COVID hoaxes some of these churches are promoting, etc.)

Churches are eligible for certain government grants and programs. I think they can get gov't grants for renovations. Don't have a problem with that, that isn't antithetical to secularism. I still am opposed to gov't funding of religious education, and so-called "faith based initiatives".
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

Have to laugh

This person

Cornell University (BA)
Harvard University (attended)
Columbia University (LLB)

Notable cases
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Court Opinion
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997) Court Opinion
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) Court Opinion
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Court Opinion
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Dissenting
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) Court Opinion
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) Court Opinion
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Dissenting
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) Dissenting
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Dissenting
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012) Concurring in part, dissenting in part, from the Court's Opinion
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Dissenting
vs a guy on the internet who has no clue what he is talking about but knows better than RBG :rw) :rw) :D :D

Rightwingers never stop embarrassing themselves.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfessorX wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am
The tax exemption of churches has been a notorious problem, historically. I certainly would argue the churches that host open political rallies for political candidates should have their tax exempt status reviewed, and possibly removed.

As for what I just stated, well, once again, I agree with the ACLU's position.

Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Fund Religious Education: How Today’s Supreme Court Decision Further Erodes the Separation of Church and State
https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-lib ... and-state/

If you want to subject your child to brainwashing and religious indoctrination, such as creationism, fine - do it on your dime. I believe science, not theology, should be taught in public schools. If you don't want your child learning science like evolution, do it on your own dime, or homeschool.

The government should not be funding anti-science indoctrination. (See also: "conversion therapy," the anti-vax/COVID hoaxes some of these churches are promoting, etc.)

Churches are eligible for certain government grants and programs. I think they can get gov't grants for renovations. Don't have a problem with that, that isn't antithetical to secularism. I still am opposed to gov't funding of religious education, and so-called "faith based initiatives".
What would you do with the tax breaks given to students and parents for college expenses where they attend religious institutions. It’s virtually the same thing.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

While I watch them and laugh, i have to say it again




This person

Cornell University (BA)
Harvard University (attended)
Columbia University (LLB)

Notable cases
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Court Opinion
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997) Court Opinion
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) Court Opinion
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Court Opinion
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Dissenting
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) Court Opinion
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) Court Opinion
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Dissenting
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) Dissenting
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Dissenting
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012) Concurring in part, dissenting in part, from the Court's Opinion
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Dissenting


vs a guy on the internet who has no clue what he is talking about but knows better than RBG :rw) :rw) :D :D

Rightwingers never stop embarrassing themselves.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

Libertas wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:29 pm
While I watch them and laugh, i have to say it again
Versus a guy who believes everything he reads on the internet and runs around screaming hysterically that everyone is out to kill him. You embarrass yourself every time you post.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

This person

Cornell University (BA)
Harvard University (attended)
Columbia University (LLB)

Notable cases
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Court Opinion
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997) Court Opinion
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) Court Opinion
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Court Opinion
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Dissenting
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) Court Opinion
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) Court Opinion
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Dissenting
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) Dissenting
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Dissenting
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012) Concurring in part, dissenting in part, from the Court's Opinion
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Dissenting


vs a guy on the internet who has no clue what he is talking about but knows better than RBG :rw) :rw) :D :D

Rightwingers never stop embarrassing themselves.
NOT EVERYBODY

Just everyone who supports or defends the traitor and putin who are trying to kill us...not complicated, really.

JoeMemphis
Board Emeritus
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by JoeMemphis »

Libertas wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:07 pm
NOT EVERYBODY

Just everyone who supports or defends the traitor and putin who are trying to kill us...not complicated, really.
Oh so only 40 million people. Hate to break it to you. That’s just as foolish.

User avatar
Libertas
Board Emeritus
Posts: 19485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS rules that Montana's ban on state funds for religious schools is unconstitutional

Post by Libertas »

More than 40 million probably.

Look, it is this simple, if your neighbor has announced he is trying to kill your other neighbor and you not only dont do anything to stop it but you continue to be friendly with that person as if they are just fine, you are an accessory...

Add to that the MAGA out there purposely not wearing masks, coughing on people out of spite...YES, they are trying to kill us, this is known and obvious.

If you defend him or dont speak out, you are guilty...not MY fault that bothers you cons.

oh :rw)

back ON TOPIC

By definition if RBG says it is this way, it is that way...period. Drives them nuts but still true. :rw) Justice driven only by the fair reading of the law and constitution and not in anyway driven by greed, did NOT have to LIE to get on the SC etc. All cons on the SC have lied and are driven by greed and ideology regardless of the law, precedent or the constitution.

Post Reply