Skip to comments.
Supreme Court to Decide School Voucher Issue
Yahoo! News ^
| 25 Sep 01
| James Vicini
Posted on 09/25/2001 9:36:37 AM PDT by Alissa
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
This is so important!!!
1
posted on
09/25/2001 9:36:37 AM PDT
by
Alissa
To: Alissa
Hopefully SCOTUS will remember that all state and local taxes are OUR money, that we pay in part to ensure our kids will be well-educated, and that should be at ANY school we choose to send them to. (Transportation should be within reasonable limits, with parents responsible for transport if outside of a designated range).
Dismantle the NEA. Bring on choices! I'm ready to get some REAL competition, and I'm gunning to be one of those teachers that are highly sought after by the parents in my community! If I can't, then I should be looking for a new job, or at least sweating the pressure of better teachers trying to replace me. Do our children and our future deserve less than that?
To: Alissa
School vouchers in no way, shape or form violate the 1st Amendment or the bogus "wall of separation". And any SCOTUS Justice that decides differently doesn't understand the Constitution, nor upholds their oath to defend the Constitution from attack (even from an ignorant Justice.)
3
posted on
09/25/2001 9:46:57 AM PDT
by
4CJ
To: Alissa
Weren't there thousands of GI's who took money from the Fed Gov to go to school, religious or not, after WW2 - otherwise known as The GI Bill?
To: Teacher317
What the NEA doesn't understand is that increased competition will be good for education, and that many teachers will see increased wages.
The problem is that many teachers and members of the NEA know that only the COMPETENT educators will see this increase, and that they are not part of that group.
5
posted on
09/25/2001 9:50:06 AM PDT
by
4CJ
To: Alissa
6
posted on
09/25/2001 9:50:13 AM PDT
by
imberedux
To: Alissa
Whichever way the court decides, it will mean the end of PUBLIC education. The constitution provides no authority at all to provide education for the masses. This case, in essence, will determine how public funds are used and on what they can be used. Public education isn't one of them.
To: Teacher317
Anybody want to predict what the liberal "party line" vote will be on this one......
Or guess what side Ginsburg (z?) and her comrades are going to be on? (She was, although Biden refused to allow comment or interviews during HER cornonation to the Court!) the senior ACLU lawyer.......
To: Alissa
This is going to be one of the most important decisions in years. The fact that the USSC took the case over the objections of the ACLU and their ilk is a very good sign. These vouchers programs primarily help poor kids, but the party of compassion and all their dembulb allies always place the teacher's union and their massive campaing contributions above the needs of actual, real poor kids. This could be the beginning of undoing 50 years of left-wing legal nonsense re the separation of church and state (a phrase from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution, and a concept that did not exist, in fact would have been inconceivable, for the first 150 years of our republic)
9
posted on
09/25/2001 9:53:04 AM PDT
by
comitatus
To: Alissa
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, said the Ohio program ``distributes educational aid on neutral terms ... without regard to religion.'' Exactly. But if they chose not to treat religion on neutral terms, they had better be prepared to strip out every single Tax requirement that applies to Churches. If the Court insists on a Wall of Separation, it better work both ways.
To: Alissa
The Supreme Court, with a 5-4 conservative majority This is a stretch. There are 3 conservative Justices (and I am not sure how Rehnquist's track record compares to Scalia's anyway). There are 3 liberal justices. And there are two in the middle, who basically get to decide how things will go.
11
posted on
09/25/2001 9:53:06 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: Teacher317
Dismantle the NEA. It would be good, but the people who would have to do it are responsible only to themselves -- not to the voters. A really good start would be to dismantle the cabinet position and far-reaching Federal bureaucracy established by Jimmih Cahtah -- the Department of Education.
To: comitatus
I have a simple question: Is Medicare accepted in religious hospitals?
13
posted on
09/25/2001 9:57:37 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: 4ConservativeJustices
What the NEA doesn't understand is that increased competition will be good for education, and that many teachers will see increased wages.
They understand it all too well. The NEA is not in the business of bettering the lives of competent teachers. They are socialist union thugs, bent on maintaining the wage-slave status of the industry, whilst filling their own deep pockets.
14
posted on
09/25/2001 9:58:58 AM PDT
by
dead
To: Teacher317
sweating the pressure of better teachers trying to replace me.You composed 2 proper paragraphs and left no dangling participles. I don't think you need to sweat it.
To: Huck
Scalia and Thomas are almost identically conservative on the court. Rhenquist is not as conservative as those two, but is still fairly conservative. O'Connor and Kennedy make up the two swingers, and then the four liberals are fairly reliably in the opposition.
16
posted on
09/25/2001 10:00:22 AM PDT
by
mrs9x
To: mrs9x
I just happened to see a recent copy of my California bar journal, in which a supposed news report on the front page claims that there are no liberals on the USSC, just conservatives and moderates. More drivel from the left coast.
To: 4ConservativeJustices
"What the NEA doesn't understand is that increased competition will be good for education, and that many teachers will see increased wages. The problem is that many teachers and members of the NEA know that only the COMPETENT educators will see this increase, and that they are not part of that group." I think the reason is actually a little different. I think the appropriate analogy is to Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, and other professional victimization cheerleaders. If their flock realizes that success is within their reach, based on nothing more than their own skills and hard work, the rabble rousers are out of a job.
Similarly, under a voucher system, teachers would be rewarded for skill at teaching rather than political reliability, union/political involvement, and seniority. The power of the traditional educational establishment to control the content of the kids' "education" (indoctrination) would be at risk. Compare this to the mainstream media whining because people can now get news from the Internet, the content of which the moguls can't contol and sanitize.
To: Huck
I have a simple question: Is Medicare accepted in religious hospitals?Excellent thought. I had always just thought in terms of the GI Bill for use in private and religious colleges. Where else is public money allowed for use in private and religious institutions? Don't Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services get lots of public money? Shouldn't this school policy be seen as just a logical extension of Bush's "Faith-Based" initiative?
Bust is smart. He didn't fight for vouchers in his Education Bill because he knew that it would tie up his bill (which I don't like), so he wants Ted Olson to fight for it in the Supreme court. Bush is no dummy. He has political smarts.
19
posted on
09/25/2001 10:15:32 AM PDT
by
DeweyCA
To: Alissa
Well here are my first thoughts:
I have paid a premium for my home, in part, due to the fact that the school system is considered the absolute best in the state.
My concern is that I will lose property value if vouchers are implemented "for the children."
The best argument for vouchers that I have seen is relative to competition... I am in absolute agreement with this argument.
Any constructive comments that may educate me are appreciated.
-Moleman
20
posted on
09/25/2001 10:21:59 AM PDT
by
Moleman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson