[wintertime]

That's not how the U.S. Constitution operates. You have things exactly backwards. As long as the U.S. Constitution doesn't *forbid* it, the states can do whatever they want, including run schools. See the 10th Amendment:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then the proper action of this judge would have been to throw the case out of federal court. He didn't though.

Also,,,did you read is opinion? Not one mention, that I recall, to the 10th Amendment. Instead his reasoning is fabricated out of thin air.

I just loved his reference to the Yoder ruling. His reasoning is that Yoder was OK because school threatened the entire Amish way of life. The Parkers have no standing because the book "King and King" does not threaten their "entire" way of life, only part of it. Oh boy! ( sigh!)

[Sandy]

Then the proper action of this judge would have been to throw the case out of federal court. He didn't though.

He *did* throw the case out. What do you think "dismissed with prejudice" means? It means, "Take a hike, and don't bring this nonsense back here again."

Not one mention, that I recall, to the 10th Amendment

Well, there's really no reason for the judge to have mentioned the 10th Amt at all. I only mentioned it to correct the freeper who thought the judge needed to "point to the exact verbage of the Constitution that gives the State the 'right' to teach ANYTHING". I didn't mean to imply that the case itself was about the 10th Amendment.

[Sandy]

I just loved his reference to the Yoder ruling. His reasoning is that Yoder was OK because school threatened the entire Amish way of life.

It's not his reasoning, actually. He's just quoting Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, the relevant 1st Circuit precedent (which, btw, is precedent he's required to follow).