The Left's Next Social Hemorrhoid Could Be Carson v. Makin

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,024
Yes folks the SCOTUS could once again trigger the already sphincters of the left:

The Left Goes Nuts as the Supreme Court Seems to Signal That Their Monopoly on Propagandizing Kids Is at an End
By streiff | Dec 12, 2021 4:30 PM ET

This week, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to Texas’s heartbeat law; see Supreme Court Humiliates Biden, Refuses to Stop Texas Heartbeat Law, and Gorsuch and the Wise Latina Have a Public Spat. All in all, it looks as though abortion may cease to be a federal issue.

Perhaps just as critical to the nation’s future was Carson v. Makin. That case addressed whether a state can subsidize private school tuition and expressly forbid religious schools to participate in the program. You can read my take at this post: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Nuke Maine’s Law Discriminating Against Religious Schools.

While there was general wailing about the bum’s rush given the noble and Holy status of abortion, some of the most hyperbolic rhetoric was directed at the Maine school-choice case. This is how the always entertaining Ian Milhiser of Vox.com sees school choice. Headline: The Supreme Court appears really eager to force taxpayers to fund religious education. Subhead: Carson v. Makin appears likely to end in another transformative victory for the religious right.

All six of the Court’s Republican appointees appeared to think that this exclusion for religious schools is unconstitutional — meaning that Maine would be required to pay for tuition at pervasively religious schools. Notably, that could include schools that espouse hateful worldviews. According to the state, one of the plaintiff families in Carson wants the state to pay for a school that requires teachers to sign a contract stating that “the Bible says that ‘God recognize homosexuals and other deviants as perverted’” and that “uch deviation from Scriptural standards is grounds for termination.’”

In the likely event that these plaintiffs’ families prevail, that will mark a significant escalation in the Court’s decisions benefiting the religious right — even if the Court limits the decision narrowly to Maine’s situation. Shortly after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republicans a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, the Court handed down a revolutionary decision holding that people of faith may seek broad exemptions from the laws that apply to anyone else. But the Court has historically been more reluctant to require the government to tax its citizens and spend that money on religion. That reluctance may very well be gone.

More here:

https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/1...y-on-propagandizing-kids-is-at-an-end-n490339
 
We can only hope some of those Republican appointed judges are good people at heart.
 
Anal references in both the thread title and the header of the first post: Vette is in total IDGAF mode now.


(BTW, I think there are plenty of non-leftists who don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing religious education. I would hope the nine justices have at least read the very first words in the Bill of Rights.)
 
(BTW, I think there are plenty of non-leftists who don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing religious education. I would hope the nine justices have at least read the very first words in the Bill of Rights.)

This case, though, is interesting. There aren't enough kids in the area to have a public school, so the state said 'since we won't provide a public school, we'll pay for private'. Except the private school is religious.
 
(BTW, I think there are plenty of non-leftists who don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing religious education. I would hope the nine justices have at least read the very first words in the Bill of Rights.)

Lets start with the most important part.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesl

Congress doesn't appear to a goddamn thing to do with any of this, this is happening at the state level. While I personally am not a huge fan of states rights thisl ooks like a simple, Rules as Written open and shut situation.

The Supreme Court has always beena bit wishy washy on when and if the Constitution applies at the State, County and City level often on things that are for one reason or another arbitrary. There are places you can't get pornography legally, or that certain sex acts cannot be shown. This was pretty big in the porn industry under the Bush Administration where multiple owners and operators were arrested for shipping across state lines.

Second establish once we get to the rest of the religious part this wouldn't really be establishing a religion nor prohibiting the excercise of other religions. The fact that there isn't a Temple or Synagogue in the area doesn't have anything to do with the state or city.

Finally the people who wrote the Constitution and founded the country came from a time when religion was VERY important. As in if the Pope said you weren't the King of France that actually held weight. They didn't want the old world to hold sway on them. That's why elected officials aren't allowed to take honorifics from foriegn countries, not because even the farthest of the Left would give a shit if Donald Trump was Knighted or some other title. Same goes for the natural born citizen. There was a very real fear that some member a royal family could garner enough votes to become president.



There are also some who don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing education, period.
 
Lets start with the most important part.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesl

Congress doesn't appear to a goddamn thing to do with any of this, this is happening at the state level. While I personally am not a huge fan of states rights thisl ooks like a simple, Rules as Written open and shut situation.

The Supreme Court has always beena bit wishy washy on when and if the Constitution applies at the State, County and City level often on things that are for one reason or another arbitrary. There are places you can't get pornography legally, or that certain sex acts cannot be shown. This was pretty big in the porn industry under the Bush Administration where multiple owners and operators were arrested for shipping across state lines.

Second establish once we get to the rest of the religious part this wouldn't really be establishing a religion nor prohibiting the excercise of other religions. The fact that there isn't a Temple or Synagogue in the area doesn't have anything to do with the state or city.

Finally the people who wrote the Constitution and founded the country came from a time when religion was VERY important. As in if the Pope said you weren't the King of France that actually held weight. They didn't want the old world to hold sway on them. That's why elected officials aren't allowed to take honorifics from foriegn countries, not because even the farthest of the Left would give a shit if Donald Trump was Knighted or some other title. Same goes for the natural born citizen. There was a very real fear that some member a royal family could garner enough votes to become president.

The Bill of Rights has been applied to the States through the incorporation doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Thus your post is incorrect in whole and part.
 
This case, though, is interesting. There aren't enough kids in the area to have a public school, so the state said 'since we won't provide a public school, we'll pay for private'. Except the private school is religious.

When dealing with issues concerning the establishment clause, the laws must be neutral. They can't favor or inhibit religion. This one appears to inhibit religion because it excludes it from participating in this program.
 
Back
Top