[Alissa]

This is so important!!!

[Teacher317]

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?

[4CJ]

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.)

[VRW Conspirator]

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?

[imberedux]

See Supreme Court to Look at Vouchers for a spirited discussion of this issue.

[Uncle Sham]

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.

[comitatus]

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)

[Always Right]

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.

[Huck]

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.

[Moleman]

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

[freedomcrusader]

What nobody has mentioned on any of these voucher threads is the programs in place in Florida and now Pennsylvania. Basically, the state gives tax credits (I'm pretty sure it's credits and not deductions) to businesses, who then donate to or set up scholarship funds. These scholarship funds can then be distributed to individuals, who choose the schools that their children will attend.

Avoids all these nasty Constitutional questions, drains $$$ from overbearing government, and allows parents to choose the education they want for their children.

[goodieD]

I still don't know whether enough members of the supreme court understand the constitution. There is no mythical separation of church and state. That is a misguided interpretation, there is no such statement. Funding vouchers for all schools, including all religious schools should not be a problem because the constitution only says they cannot promote ONE state religion..not any religion but only one. It does NOT say that it cannot support religion at all. The separation of church and state lie is just an attempt by liberals (sorry, I don't believe that any antheist is a true conservative) to dismantle the very foundation of this country.

[1Old Pro]

I thought lower courst already ruled this constitutional. If so, SCOTUS will support an uphold.

[victim soul]

"Supporters of vouchers maintained they promote competition in education and force public schools to improve while opponents argued they threaten the fiscal integrity of the nation's public school system."

Why is it parents can have "choice" in ending their child's life but not have a "choice' in the educational system that educates their living child?

Why do they government school educators worry about disturbing the "fiscal integrity of the nation's public school system"? Aren't they really admitting that the outflow from their controlled environment would be embarrassing?

[nmh]

If they veto it, then they'd better issue refunds to folks who refuse public schools. There is no logical reason why parents of school age should subsidize what isn't acceptable for their own schools. I also wouldn't mind if those whithout children don't pay any taxes for it. They are getting NO return what so ever.