Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post Reply
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

A fetus is not a human. Educate yourself. RBG often discussed that she would like to see Roe argued on stronger grounds, because those stronger grounds existed and she considered a woman's right to choose a paramount civil right that was worthwhile protecting at every turn.
dorankj
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by dorankj »

Once again, you can’t “privately “ kill another human. Even RBG warned that Roe was shaky legal invention.
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

The Constitutional right to privacy in Roe was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS many times over the years. It wasn't just a one off.
dorankj
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by dorankj »

The “activist court” happened 49 years ago, inventing a ‘right’ where none exists. Roberts is an ‘institutionalist’ who would rather not ‘damage’ the court than do as the constitution says. That thinking is why your side used the court to pass ‘law’ when you couldn’t get your way in congress or more precisely elections. The rest is hyperbole propaganda drivel that you lap up from your ‘state’ media!
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

The Mississippi case that SCOTUS just ruled on was not a case asking for Roe to be overturned, instead it was a case presenting a 15 week ban. Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion said he did not agree with the majority in overturning Roe, but did agree with the original 15 week premise. By going beyond the scope of the presented case the majority proved itself to be what is called an 'activist court'.

Thanks to this overreach we now live in a Country where for the first time the court took away a right of a specific group - women - making them less equal under the eyes of the law now. Next up, according to Thomas is marriage equality, contraception & LGBTQ rights. This SCOTUS is not done yet.
PAL
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by PAL »

Alito predetermined it, it seems like, when the leak came out.
Let's forget about dissecting the open mindedness.
You don't seem to ponder or think about subjects and the consequences. You just go off.
And there you go again, with name calling. Calling Ray a mor*n.
I'm with him, no time for you.
Pearl Cherrington
dorankj
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by dorankj »

Wrong again PAL, the justices never said they wouldn’t overturn Roe, even “basically”. They all ‘pretty much’ say they recognize “stari decisis” (however it’s spelled) but can never pre-determine their ruling on any case that may come before them. (I watched the hearings too)

As too “narrow minded”, once again pot-meet-kettle! (Hint- you are not ‘open minded’ because you believe you are or because people who largely agree with you say you are!) Think about it (with your ‘open mindedness’!)
PAL
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by PAL »

Nope again Ken. It is corrupt, not just because I don't yike it! Based on principle or fact is what I observe. They lied to get on the Court. I watched the hearings and all 3 said they wouldn't mess with abortion basically.
Ah, but you are narrow minded. And hey, why are you even on here. You are the only one with a dissenting opinion. I would think you would get tired of us.
But disagreeing is actually a good thing. It's good to have discourse. Only problem is you think you are so so right.
Pearl Cherrington
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

What part of the argument that this impacts school children who will be forced to attend a school that denies civil rights of our society? Or do you think that because this doesn't affect you and yours that it's irrelevant.
dorankj
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by dorankj »

Funny, it’s only “corrupt” when you don’t like it! Maybe make a real argument based in principle or fact and then you might get someone to consider your POV.
PAL
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by PAL »

So taxpayers are to help pay for these type of schools, that are at odds with the terrible, terrible, "humanistic views" prevailing in our society."
We know the Supreme Court is just trying to follow the laws according to their corrupt interpretation.
It will only get worse.
I added the words, "terrible, terrible", in case you didn't notice.
Pearl Cherrington
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

From NBC news:

'Following the high court’s decision, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement that he is “terribly disappointed and disheartened” by the ruling, which specifically affects about 5,000 Maine children and their families who live in rural school districts that do not have a public school, and therefore must rely on the tuition program to attend private school.

He said the schools named in the suit “promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.” He also vowed to work with Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, to “ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry.”

“While parents have the right to send their children to such schools, it is disturbing that the Supreme Court found that parents also have the right to force the public to pay for an education that is fundamentally at odds with values we hold dear,” Frey said in the statement.

The two private Christian schools involved in the case — Temple Academy and Bangor Christian Schools — “candidly admit” that they discriminate against LGBTQ people, state officials wrote in a May 2021 court filing.

Bangor Christian’s 2021 handbook, for example, says the only “legitimate meaning” of marriage is one that “joins one man and one woman” and states that “any other type of sexual activity, identity or expression that lies outside of this definition of marriage” are “sinful perversions of and contradictory to God’s natural design.”

“Any deviation from the sexual identity that God created will not be accepted,” the handbook states.'

Temple Academy requires students and parents to sign a form acknowledging that the school adheres to a conservative evangelical ideology that includes views on marriage and homosexuality that are “often at odds” with the “humanistic views currently prevailing in our society.”
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by pasayten »

"Should worry us all" is just your opinion and not one I find true.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

Of course the extremes are a waste of time, so are anecdoctal examples. But Breyer's dissent premises should worry us all.
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by pasayten »

You have your opinion and I have mine... Arguments to the extremes are a waste of time and are not practical real world examples... I am in agreement with the majprity of SCOTUS... They have far more time and knowledge in the proper application of laws than lay people.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

Your argument rests upon an anecdotal example.
Just for fun, and I mean this sincerely, imagine your tax dollars funding the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is a popular religion.
I did agree with the group that was countering this that public funding should go to public schools, not any kind of private.

From Justice Breyer on my link:

OPINION ANALYSIS
Court strikes down Maine’s ban on using public funds at religious schools
By Amy Howe
on Jun 21, 2022 at 12:13 pm
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
front facade of supreme court building with tall chain fence and "area closed" signs in foreground
The Supreme Court remains surrounded by a security barrier as the court nears the end of its term. (Katie Barlow)
This article was updated on June 21 at 1:38 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Maine violated the Constitution when it refused to make public funding available for students to attend schools that provide religious instruction. The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts was a broad ruling, making clear that when state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools.

The decision was the latest in a series of cases in recent years in which the court has sided with parents and religious institutions challenging state policies that barred them from receiving education-related funds that were available for secular, but not religious, recipients.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from Tuesday’s decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor cautioning that her colleagues had “upended constitutional doctrine” and expressing “growing concern for where this Court will lead us next.”

The dispute before the court in Carson v. Makin began as a challenge to the system that Maine uses to provide a free public education to school-aged children. In some of the state’s rural and sparsely populated areas, school districts opt not to run their own secondary schools. Instead, they choose one of two options: sending students to other public or private schools that the district designates, or paying tuition at the public or private school that each student selects. But in the latter case, state law allows government funds to be used only at schools that are nonsectarian – that is, schools that do not provide religious instruction.

Two Maine families went to court, arguing that the exclusion of schools that provide religious instruction violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. On Tuesday, the justices agreed. Roberts suggested that the court’s decision was an “unremarkable” application of prior decisions in two other recent cases (both of which Roberts wrote): Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, in which the justices ruled that Missouri could not exclude a church from a program to provide grants to non-profits to install playgrounds made from recycled tires, and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, holding that if states opt to subsidize private education, they cannot exclude private schools from receiving those funds simply because they are religious.

In this case, Roberts explained, Maine pays tuition for some students to attend private schools, as “long as the schools are not religious.” “That,” Roberts stressed, “is discrimination against religion.” It does not matter, Roberts continued, that the Maine program was intended to provide students with the equivalent of a free public education, which is secular. The focus of the program, Roberts reasoned, is providing a benefit – tuition to attend a public or private school – rather than providing the equivalent of the education that students would receive in public schools. Indeed, Roberts observed, private schools that are eligible for the tuition benefit are not required to use the same curriculum as public schools, or even to use certified teachers. He suggested that the state’s argument was circular: “Saying that Maine offers a benefit limited to private secular education is just another way of saying that Maine does not extend tuition assistance payments to parents who choose to educate their children at religious schools.”

Roberts similarly rejected the state’s argument that the tuition-assistance program does not violate the Constitution because it only bars benefits from going to schools that provide religious instruction. Although Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza focused on organizations’ religious status (rather than on whether the organizations would be using government funds for religious purposes), those rulings did not hold that states could make funding for private schools hinge on whether the schools provide religious instruction, Roberts explained. To the contrary, Roberts indicated, there is no real distinction between a school’s religious status and its use of funds for religious purposes.

Roberts also dismissed any suggestion that Tuesday’s ruling would require the state to fund religious education. Maine has other options to eliminate its need to fund private schools, Roberts noted: It could, for example, create more public schools or improve transportation to public schools. But having chosen to provide public funding for private schools, Roberts concluded, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Justice Stephen Breyer filed an 18-page dissent that Justice Elena Kagan joined and Sotomayor joined in part. Breyer emphasized that the First Amendment’s free exercise and establishment clauses were intended to strike a balance on the interaction between government and religion, with the ultimate goal of “avoiding religious strife” in a country that now has over 100 different religions. Maine’s program is intended to foster precisely this kind of balance, Breyer argued, and the state has the right to opt not to fund religious schools.

Breyer noted that the Supreme Court has not previously ruled that “a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public education.” But Tuesday’s decision, Breyer suggested, creates the prospect that states may now be required to providing funds for religious schools simply by operating public schools or by giving vouchers for use at charter schools.

Sotomayor echoed Breyer’s warnings in her five-page dissent. In a short time, she observed, the Supreme Court has “shift[ed] from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.” As a result, she continued, “any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for where this Court will lead us next,” she wrote, “I respectfully dissent.”
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by pasayten »

The Christian school in our community is accredited by the state... Even has an annual science fair... I do not see the problem if also incorporating approved curriculum... Parents have a right to choose schools that will provide the best education for their kids. Many "public" schools fall short in proper education and only seek to get the students "graduated" and out the door... That is apparent with many young adults in our society today.

The Supreme Court got it right this time.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Rideback
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by Rideback »

There are over 100 different religions in this Country. Private schools and charter schools' funding has always been a dicey issue and just because a school is privaate does not guarantee it is better than a public school education and then there's the issue of how a private school chooses to present education itself, does it meet state standards of merit, does it forego teaching of science in favor of religious doctrine...?

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/cour ... s-schools/
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Post by pasayten »

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
By Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed and Chandelis Duster, CNN

Updated 4:23 PM ET, Tue June 21, 2022

(CNN)The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life, a trend bolstered by the addition of three of former President Donald Trump's nominees.

"Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise."
Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal justices dissented.
It is a loss for critics who say the decision will amount to a further erosion of the separation between church and state. Although only one other state, Vermont, has a similar program, the court's ruling could inspire other states to pass similar programs.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said, "today's ruling puts states in a difficult position" if they choose to provide school tuition assistance programs.
"Although framed as a school-choice ruling, it's hard to see how this won't have implications for a far wider range of state benefit programs -- putting government in the awkward position of having to choose between directly funding religious activity or not providing funding at all," Vladeck said.

Writing a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court had "never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education."
Responding to Breyer's emphasis on "government neutrality," Roberts wrote that "there is nothing neutral about Maine's program."
"The state" he said, "pays for tuition for certain students at private schools -- so long as they are not religious."
"That is discrimination against religion," Roberts said.
"Maine's administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any such public benefit program — including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient's religious exercise," he added.
Sotomayor, in a dissent of her own, put Tuesday's ruling in context with the court's other recent moves to expand religious liberty, while accusing the court of dismantling "the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."
The majority, she wrote, did this by "embracing arguments from prior separate writings and ignoring decades of precedent affording governments flexibility in navigating the tension between the Religion Clauses."

"As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars," Sotomayor said.
Religious conservatives and organizations praised the ruling, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which filed a brief in the case.
"This watershed Supreme Court ruling opens the door for our advocacy efforts at the state and local levels in key places like New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere," said Maury Litwack, executive director of the Orthodox Union's Teach Coalition.
Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, called the ruling "a great day for religious liberty in America."
"We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country," Shackleford said in a statement. "Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government."
I agree with this... As a friend commented...
It's hilarious how CNN frames this ruling as "the latest attempt by Trump Judges to being religion into public life" as if religion is bad and shouldn't be in public life. The constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion not the practice of religion. If a Jewish family wants to send their child to a Jewish school, they should not be punished just because it's Jewish. Let parents decide who and what is educating their kids it's not the government's job to decide where we educate our children. The American public funds public schools with our taxes, let us use that money to send our kids to the best school available according to our values and opinions. I think a lot of public schools simply don't want the competition. Competition generally improves things. Crappy schools should find themselves without students because thoughtful parents have the power to choose.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests