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 ...
I think they want to be nowhere near DC when the decision is released.
Days like this wont deter the never-Trump, RINO element of the right, but this doesn’t happen without a Trump victory in 2016, a victory of his own will, against the odds and for which he has suffered like few others.
McConnell, McCarthy, Ryan and all the rest get no credit. Thanks You President Trump. I may never vote for another National republican, but you did me proud.
Being too lazy to look, I’ll bet this refers to the ‘Blaine Amendment’. This was a 19th-century movement to stop any funding of parochial schools. Many, if not most states adopted it.
Enforcement of law is not a judicial function.
Prosecutorial discrection (and judical prerogative) are impenetrable powers.
WOOT!!
good ruling preventing States and Cities from DISCRIMINATING against religious schools!!!!
THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!
for appointing REAL CONSERVATIVES!!!
Just imagine if the RINO’s like the Bush’s hadn’t of sold us out!! we could of stopped the liberals DECADES AGO!!
Not in there. Just a striking down of Maine restriction on parents who are able to obtain public financing for the education of their children.
Held the be a violation of the free exercize clause of the 1st amendment.
I'll add that if it wants, the state can simply not fund education at all. That way they would not be funding religious education. Make all schools private sort of direction.
As I noted recently of a 5-2 state court ruling that held that elephants were not people, it seemed unlikely to me that the “2” who wanted to say elephants were persons would also agree that any unborn humans are persons.
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. “
Catchy and clever... but a completely wrong twist on things. It’s what the left does. Distort and destroy.
Just so. We could have energy independnece and secure borders too. The professional politicians have long been against both of those things.
Hey, how is that filibuster going in the Senate?
The one that you said would be “gone.”
TAKE YOUR L.
which is the REAL reason they HATE TRUMP!!!
he EXPOSED the RINO’s in the GOP for the sell outs that they are!
Shouldn’t McConnell get some credit for holding up the seat?
The wise Latina hates the Constitution, and regards ordinary people as helpless.
Meanwhile, in other judicial news, this quote from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal commentary about the NYS Supreme Court recent denial of petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project’s application to have elephants declared human:
“...Happy the elephant at the Bronx Zoo, was rebuffed in a 5-2 decision by the New York State Court of Appeals. For now, an elephant is an elephant, not a person, though elephants are clearly smarter than two dissenting New York state judges and the humans at the Nonhuman Rights Project.”
The U of Penn women’s swim team can now rest easy knowing that transelephant Happy won’t be showing up for a spot on the team any time soon. Poor thangs. What, with the gender confused, genderless , transpecies, transelephants, Jabba the Hut type plant based beings, each with their own set of pronouns, and each clutching freshly issued judicial decisions from California declaring them teenage women. potentially vying for a spot on the U of Penn women’s swim team, the team will look more like a Star Wars bar with flippers than a women’s swim team.
Maybe this will help with school choice across the US. I’d sure like a voucher equal to what the federal, state, and local cost of my kid’s education to apply it to a school of our choosing, whether religious or not.
Yes, but he is an enemy on so many other issues. Plus, he sabotages the best candidates in primaries, such as Kathy Barnette!
Is this normal for a justice to make such a personal emotional comment in a written decision? Or is this limited to affirmative action justices upset they didn’t get their way?
Probably shares an office with the guy who planted pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC on January 6th.
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. “
Funny thing about the US Constitution, Judge Sotomayor, it doesn’t have the words “separation of church and state” any where in it. You should read it some time. What it does say is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That should be taken to include Atheism as a religious view. If you prohibit public funds from an entity with their religious nature as the only disqualifying attribute then you essentially establish Atheism as the national religion. That goes completely contrary to the Founders’ intentions.
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.