Posted on 02/25/2004 11:50:09 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
What is the nature of the State’s asserted interest here? It cannot be protecting the pocketbooks of its citizens; given the tiny fraction of Promise Scholars who would pursue theology degrees, the amount of any citizen’s tax bill at stake is de minimis. It cannot be preventing mistaken appearance of endorsement; where a State merely declines to penalize students for selecting a religious major, “[n]o reasonable observer is likely to draw … an inference that the State itself is endorsing a religious practice or belief.” Id., at 493 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Nor can Washington’s exclusion be defended as a means of assuring that the State will neither favor nor disfavor Davey in his religious calling. Davey will throughout his life contribute to the public fisc through sales taxes on personal purchases, property taxes on his home, and so on; and nothing in the Court’s opinion turns on whether Davey winds up a net winner or loser in the State’s tax-and-spend scheme.
No, the interest to which the Court defers is not fear of a conceivable Establishment Clause violation, budget constraints, avoidance of endorsement, or substantive neutrality–none of these. It is a pure philosophical preference: the State’s opinion that it would violate taxpayers’ freedom of conscience not to discriminate against candidates for the ministry. This sort of protection of “freedom of conscience” has no logical limit and can justify the singling out of religion for exclusion from public programs in virtually any context. The Court never says whether it deems this interest compelling (the opinion is devoid of any mention of standard of review) but, self-evidently, it is not.
(Excerpt) Read more at supct.law.cornell.edu ...
This is how one winds up another tour-de-force majority-hypocrisy spanking.
Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority. Most citizens of this country identify themselves as professing some religious belief, but the State’s policy poses no obstacle to practitioners of only a tepid, civic version of faith. Those the statutory exclusion actually affects–those whose belief in their religion is so strong that they dedicate their study and their lives to its ministry–are a far narrower set. One need not delve too far into modern popular culture to perceive a trendy disdain for deep religious conviction. In an era when the Court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, see, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996), its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional.
. The First Amendment, after all, guarantees free exercise of religion, and when the State exacts a financial penalty of almost $3,000 for religious exercise–whether by tax or by forfeiture of an otherwise available benefit–religious practice is anything but free.
Pretty obvious. I'm disappointed in Renquist. It's what I'd expect from the rest.
The Cultural Left is about to start having many sleepless nights....
Rehnquist holds that the State of Washington does not violate free exercise to stipulate that recipients of its scholarship program may not spend it to study devotional theology.
My interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that Washington State should decide on its own whether its scholarship program violates its own free exercise clause. However, given the Doctrine of Incorporation, it is de facto up to SCOTUS and it raises the stakes bigtime.
Political ramifications: I'm afraid this decision will act against school choice, allowing states to take away the option for poor school children to attend religious schools. This decision may embolden the left to enact those anti-choice laws.
I don't think I agree, since the court cases involving vouchers and school choice have revolved around the wording of the Constitution of the State in question, not the U.S. Constitution.
State's haven't been "allowed" to do anything since determining what higher education a State will, or won't, fund is not a power granted to the federal government. The court, IMO, simply affirmed that there is no federal issue concerning how States fund higher education, and that their refusal to fund religious higher education, is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
36 States have laws precluding the State from funding religious higher education, 14 do not. I do not expect to see a mad rush in any of these States to change the laws that are currently on their books. If some States decide to change their laws to allow for such funding, then fine, that would be great. Otherwise, let the people of those 36 States petition the legislature or start a ballot initiative to change the law. Apparently, in the 14 States that have no such laws, its not an issue for the citizens.
I am curious, though, as to which 14 States don't have such laws. It would be interesting to see which ones(I doubt any are the original 13 colonies).
Q: Should all women judges be recused from ruling in abortion cases?
Q:Should the gay judge who let the gay SF weddings proceed have recused himself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.