Quote:The Supreme Court has decided it will hear a case against Maine’s ban on using financial aid through a state program to attend religious schools, the court announced Friday.

Families have challenged a Maine Department of Education policy that says public tuition dollars for families who don’t live near a public school can’t be used to send children to religious schools, but can be used to send them to public or private schools.

Plaintiffs in the case, Carson v. Makin, filed a petition earlier this year with the Supreme Court, which was granted on Friday. It is one of 10 cases that the high court added to its docket on Friday while closing out its nine-month term.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) maintained in a statement reported by The Associated Press that religious schools are excluded from the public tuition dollars “because the education they provide is not equivalent to” public schools.

“Parents are free to send their children to such schools if they choose, but not with public dollars. I am confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that that nothing in the Constitution requires Maine to include religious schools in its public education system,” Frey said, according to AP.

(07-03-2021, 02:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: A thread to discuss decisions of the highest court.

Quote:The Supreme Court has decided it will hear a case against Maine’s ban on using financial aid through a state program to attend religious schools, the court announced Friday.

Families have challenged a Maine Department of Education policy that says public tuition dollars for families who don’t live near a public school can’t be used to send children to religious schools, but can be used to send them to public or private schools.

Plaintiffs in the case, Carson v. Makin, filed a petition earlier this year with the Supreme Court, which was granted on Friday. It is one of 10 cases that the high court added to its docket on Friday while closing out its nine-month term.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) maintained in a statement reported by The Associated Press that religious schools are excluded from the public tuition dollars “because the education they provide is not equivalent to” public schools.

“Parents are free to send their children to such schools if they choose, but not with public dollars. I am confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that that nothing in the Constitution requires Maine to include religious schools in its public education system,” Frey said, according to AP.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/561338-supreme-court-to-hear-maine-ban-on-religious-school-funding

AG Frey seems a tad starry-eyed to me. I doubt the six conservatives on the court won't find some tortured logic and mix it with a little judicial activism.

(07-03-2021, 02:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: AG Frey seems a tad starry-eyed to me. I doubt the six conservatives on the court won't find some tortured logic and mix it with a little judicial activism.

(07-03-2021, 03:47 PM)Inkubus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 02:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: AG Frey seems a tad starry-eyed to me. I doubt the six conservatives on the court won't find some tortured logic and mix it with a little judicial activism.

What a great pity the famed 'Separation of Church and State' amendment ended up meaning no such thing, the supreme court is full of religious loons.
The likes of Kavanaugh & Barrett have worked their entire lives to achieve the position they hold and they have an a agenda. Roe vs Wade will be the first to go. Followed over the next few generations by moves to limit access to birth control, then dancing, then loud music...

Catholics are good at this; they have a history.

Your all fucked.

(07-03-2021, 03:57 PM)Inkubus Wrote: Look at the enormous backing and support they have. They aren't going anywhere for a while.

(07-03-2021, 03:47 PM)Inkubus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 02:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: AG Frey seems a tad starry-eyed to me. I doubt the six conservatives on the court won't find some tortured logic and mix it with a little judicial activism.

What a great pity the famed 'Separation of Church and State' amendment ended up meaning no such thing, the supreme court is full of religious loons.
The likes of Kavanaugh & Barrett have worked their entire lives to achieve the position they hold and they have an a agenda. Roe vs Wade will be the first to go. Followed over the next few generations by moves to limit access to birth control, then dancing, then loud music...

Catholics are good at this; they have a history.

Your all fucked.

(07-03-2021, 09:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 03:47 PM)Inkubus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 02:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: AG Frey seems a tad starry-eyed to me. I doubt the six conservatives on the court won't find some tortured logic and mix it with a little judicial activism.

What a great pity the famed 'Separation of Church and State' amendment ended up meaning no such thing, the supreme court is full of religious loons.
The likes of Kavanaugh & Barrett have worked their entire lives to achieve the position they hold and they have an a agenda. Roe vs Wade will be the first to go. Followed over the next few generations by moves to limit access to birth control, then dancing, then loud music...

Catholics are good at this; they have a history.

Your all fucked.

I'm not optimistic, but I'm not that pessimistic, either. While I agree they have an agenda, I think Roberts and Gorsuch are pretty sensitive to political currents in our broader political thought, and especially Roberts doesn't want his court tainted in history as a rubber-stamp for conservative views.

I could be wrong, but which justice (aside from Thomas) would be happy authoring the opinion on the 21st-century's version of Dred Scott? Not only do women turn out to vote higher proportionally, the also constitute a slight majority of all registered voters; women also tend to skew Democrat.

This court may limit Roe v Wade, but I doubt they'll vacate it. Vacating that decision would ensure Republican losses going forward for some time to come, and probably see the ultimate reversal of any decisions made under this court. I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

Quote:I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

(07-03-2021, 10:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

But they are heavily outnumbered by the assholes.

(07-03-2021, 11:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 10:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

But they are heavily outnumbered by the assholes.

You're probably right. Thinking beyond the next election-cycle seems beyond their ken.

(07-03-2021, 09:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm not optimistic, but I'm not that pessimistic, either. While I agree they have an agenda, I think Roberts and Gorsuch are pretty sensitive to political currents in our broader political thought, and especially Roberts doesn't want his court tainted in history as a rubber-stamp for conservative views.

I could be wrong, but which justice (aside from Thomas) would be happy authoring the opinion on the 21st-century's version of Dred Scott? Not only do women turn out to vote higher proportionally, the also constitute a slight majority of all registered voters; women also tend to skew Democrat.

This court may limit Roe v Wade, but I doubt they'll vacate it. Vacating that decision would ensure Republican losses going forward for some time to come, and probably see the ultimate reversal of any decisions made under this court.

I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

Quote:In 2016, 63% of women who were eligible to vote said they cast ballots in the presidential election, compared with 59% of men. That 4 percentage point gender gap is similar to the 4-point gaps in 2012 and 2008 as well as the 3-point gaps in 2004, 2000 and 1996.

(07-04-2021, 01:52 AM)Inkubus Wrote:

(07-03-2021, 09:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm not optimistic, but I'm not that pessimistic, either. While I agree they have an agenda, I think Roberts and Gorsuch are pretty sensitive to political currents in our broader political thought, and especially Roberts doesn't want his court tainted in history as a rubber-stamp for conservative views.

I could be wrong, but which justice (aside from Thomas) would be happy authoring the opinion on the 21st-century's version of Dred Scott? Not only do women turn out to vote higher proportionally, the also constitute a slight majority of all registered voters; women also tend to skew Democrat.

This court may limit Roe v Wade, but I doubt they'll vacate it. Vacating that decision would ensure Republican losses going forward for some time to come, and probably see the ultimate reversal of any decisions made under this court.

I guess the real question is, do Republicans think that far ahead? I think some do.

Thanks for that my view was indeed rather simplistic. From your link:

Quote:In 2016, 63% of women who were eligible to vote said they cast ballots in the presidential election, compared with 59% of men. That 4 percentage point gender gap is similar to the 4-point gaps in 2012 and 2008 as well as the 3-point gaps in 2004, 2000 and 1996.

What a curious thing I would never have guessed that, four percentage points is a lot of votes.
Now factor in that crafty bastard Mitch McConnell I'm sure his machinations regarding GOP tactics for 2024 will take priority over the Vatican. For now. 

(07-03-2021, 03:47 PM)Inkubus Wrote: What a great pity the famed 'Separation of Church and State' amendment ended up meaning no such thing, the supreme court is full of religious loons...

(07-04-2021, 01:10 PM)SYZ Wrote: How's about the USG makes Justice terms of, say, two presidential terms in order to force a court that better reflects the nation's mores and morals?

Quote:John Sullivan Roberts— Catholic, age 54,
Clarence Thomas— Catholic, age 73,
Stephen Breyer— Jewish, age 82,

Samuel Alito Jr— Catholic, age 63,
Sonia Sotomayor— Catholic, age 67,
Elena Kagan— Jewish, age 61,

Neil Gorsuch— Unaffiliated? age 53,
Brett Kavanaugh— Catholic, age 56,
Amy Coney Barrett— Catholic, age 49.

Quote:The Supreme Court’s Inadequate Recusal Policy

Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to recuse herself in a case involving a nonprofit that spent over $1 million getting her confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Quote:U.S. Supreme Court justices can use concurring opinions to clarify, amplify, or even distance themselves from the majority opinion of the Court. Sometimes, the simple fact of concurrence, without any explanation, can tell us a great deal—perhaps more than intended—about a justice’s outlook and approach to the law. That is what happened when Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts’s 6-3 majority opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, a case in which she should have recused herself.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) brought the lawsuit to challenge a California law requiring charitable organizations to disclose the identities of their major donors to the state attorney general’s office. Organizations across the political spectrum, including the Cato Institute, the ACLU, and the NAACP, joined the litigation as amici curiae. It was the lead plaintiff, however, that created the conflict of interest for Justice Barrett. The AFPF happens to be the nonprofit arm of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-financed advocacy organization that had publicly committed over $1 million to securing Barrett’s confirmation.

(07-04-2021, 02:48 PM)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:John Sullivan Roberts— Catholic, age 54,
Clarence Thomas— Catholic, age 73,
Stephen Breyer— Jewish, age 82,

Samuel Alito Jr— Catholic, age 63,
Sonia Sotomayor— Catholic, age 67,
Elena Kagan— Jewish, age 61,

Neil Gorsuch— Unaffiliated? age 53,
Brett Kavanaugh— Catholic, age 56,
Amy Coney Barrett— Catholic, age 49.

Definitely too many fucking catholicks!