Skip to comments.SCOTUS, led by Roberts, upholds religious freedom in Maine (Breaking News)
Posted on 06/21/2022 7:38:46 AM PDT by nwrep
This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of a Maine program that prohibits tuition for some students to attend private religious schools when their own school district does not operate a public secondary school.
The court 6-3, led by Roberts, holds that the Maine program violates the free exercise clause.
Because the benefits hinge on whether a school is religious, the Chief writes, the Maine program "effectively penalizes the free exercise" of religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
good decision, Breyer and Sotomayor are livid.
Strong language from Sotomayor: "What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the Court was 'lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.' Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. "
Link to opinion ... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Here is the ruling, Carson v. Makin: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
“ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,
ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN J., joined, and in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part I–B. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. “
Well, our wise Latina shows her ignorance, as “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution. It is not a constitutional commitment(her words) in the first place.
Excellent..public school groomer lose again.
...and they are done for the day releasing opinions
R- Date Docket Name Revised J. Pt.
53 6/21/22 20-1641 Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc. BK 596/2
52 6/21/22 20-1459 United States v. Taylor NG 596/2
51 6/21/22 21-404 United States v. Washington B 596/2
50 6/21/22 21-511 Shoop v. Twyford R 596/2
49 6/21/22 20-1088 Carson v. Makin R 596/2
Roberts needs more time to twist arms to get one of the justices to backtrack on the abortion decision. That will be last as he feverishly works to intimidate justices. BTW, where is that leaker??
Yeah, I caught that bit about “constitutional commitment” also. This from the woman who has no idea about anything pretty much.
Religious freedom is an important part of the conservative agenda. I wish it got more attention during presidential debates. Moderate Republicans ignore the topic but it’s a winning issue.
Yep, l guess none of the Justices have flipped yet. So Roberts is fine the Justices and their families being terrorized until one or more of them cross over. Bet the farm Roberts knows who the leaker is and is sitting on it.
Leftards to firebomb Roberts’ house. He’s getting uppity.
How many outstanding does that leave?
Thank you Donald Trump. Excellent!
Maine allows tuition assistance for parents who have to send their children to private schools because there is no public school. The schools must be accredited. Maine prohibited parents from sending their children to religious schools even if the religious school had the exact same accreditation as the non-sectarian school.
The Constitution may prohibit the government from favoring religion, but it also prohibits the government from disfavoring religion, which is exactly what this Maine law did.
Next scheduled decision release day is this Thursday.
Sotomayor said: “Nonetheless, it is irrational for this Court to hold that the Free Exercise Clause bars Maine from giving money to par- ents to fund the only type of education the State may pro- vide consistent with the Establishment Clause: a reli- giously neutral one. Nothing in the Constitution requires today’s result.”
I understand what she is saying, but there are big glaring practicality problems with placing the onus on parents to undertake a regulatory function that they are not equipped to undertake. Then again there is the problems with accounting for public funds in the transparent fashion required by law.
Why hasn’t the court issued an injunction against demonstrating at the residences of judges? Why hasn’t the court issued a reprimand to the Justice Dept for not enforcing federal law?
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.