Posted on 04/04/2011 7:50:02 PM PDT by Rabin
A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that taxpayers have no legal right to challenge a tax break worth millions to donors supporting private religious schools. The 5-4 decision left intact an Arizona tax subsidy that was enacted because the state constitution forbids direct aid to religious schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Rab
Why is this 5/4 decision interpreted as ‘deeply divided’? Haven’t there been 5/4 decisions, before?
Supreme Court upholds parents ability to chose schools.
That is awesome!
AZ has some wonderful laws.
Npr, fair and balanced. Mmm, uu ya sure. However, pr made it to press, wait for cnn………..
R.
“Deeply divided” = “Conservatives won”
This law needs to be mimicked throughout the rest of this country!
Won: Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Roberts; LOST BIGTIME: Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer.
Surprise, surprise!
Good news and bad news here. The good news is obvious, but the bad news is that this case was really about standing. These justices have just ruled that individual citizens do not have the standing to challenge this law. That was the question before the court here, and that’s the exact question they’re going to be asked in California’s Prop. 8 lawsuit, whether the individual citizens who proposed Prop. 8 have legal standing to defend the law when the governor will not. Kennedy, who wrote this decision, has tipped his hand that he does not favor granting standing to individuals.
Bullseye.
This has been so helpful to many of us here in AZ who sent our children to private schools. My husband and I benefited and also continue to benefit others (our kids are past the high school level now). AZ has some really good things which we love about living here.
This has been so helpful to many of us here in AZ who sent our children to private schools. My husband and I benefited and also continue to benefit others (our kids are past the high school level now). AZ has some really good things which we love about living here.
I’ll wager that the (ahem) “pro-choicers” are not applauding this opportunity to choose.
?Won: Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Roberts; LOST BIGTIME: Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer.”
Whew. Lucky we had RINOs like Snowe and Collins to help put Alito and Roberts over the top on their confirmation votes.
Awesome news!
What is it about God, faith, and religion that makes the Democrats so uneasy?
By the way, this was an astonishingly fair report from Totenberg.
Exactly.
Parents (and everybody else) still get hosed paying for the government schools, but at least they can keep their children away from them without having to pay $thousand$ more.
This is a double edge sword.
This is good for Christians and Jews who don’t want their children sent to Marxist brainwashing facilities aka as public schools.
However, this means Muslims have the same rights to send their children to schools that preach hatred of Christians and Jews on the tax payer’s dime.
“This is a double edge sword.
This is good for Christians and Jews who don’t want their children sent to Marxist brainwashing facilities aka as public schools.
However, this means Muslims have the same rights to send their children to schools that preach hatred of Christians and Jews on the tax payer’s dime.”
I’ll take that trade off any day. Free choice is not perfect, but it beats the alternative. Besides, Muslims will teach their kids hate at home and in mosques anyway, regardless of what school the kids attend.
From what I read in today’s newspaper about standing, to paraphrase, Kennedy said that people had a right to spend their own money as they wish and it was nobody’s business to try and stop them, so that’s why the court denied standing. The opposition said it wasn’t their money, it belonged to the state. Too bad.
Maybe “standing” isn’t a bad thing in some cases.
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.