|
Oracle posted:What in the actual gently caress. How do they justify this? This is just patent pulling out of their rear end bullshit. You want to talk about activist judges and legislating from the bench? Why are we even following the Constitution anymore? Its dead, and the Roberts court just killed it. They're unelected godkings.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Kaal posted:If I create a church of pedestrian safety, does that mean my state has to fund my religious bicycle paths at the same level as secular highways? Signs point to yes these days. Not thinking big enough. Found a satanic school or a madrassa and apply for the program
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Based on a what test? The *cleans out ear with pinky finger* what test? quote:Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Not thinking big enough. Found a satanic school or a madrassa and apply for the program Sorry, based on Constitutional precedent and the founding fathers, the Supreme Court has decided that only evangelical Christians count as religious groups. Balls and strikes you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If I create a church of pedestrian safety, does that mean my state has to fund my religious bicycle paths at the same level as secular highways? Signs point to yes these days. CoS hasn't done too well in recent cases, no. SCOTUS has contradicted their own rulings about services the state needed to provide for Christians vs. Muslims within the same term. They don't care about being ideologically consistent when it would go against GOP culture war planks; they're just openly enshrining straight theocratic Christian exceptionalism at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
So private and explicitly religious schools get public funds. Great, now more of my tax dollars will be going to cults.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:CoS hasn't done too well in recent cases, no. SCOTUS has contradicted their own rulings about services the state needed to provide for Christians vs. Muslims within the same term. They don't care about being ideologically consistent when it would go against GOP culture war planks; they're just openly enshrining straight theocratic Christian exceptionalism at this point. Ah, but I bought the corporate identity of a church and reconstituted it, and therefore my faith has 200 years of precedent and will sue your state for $100 million under Freedom of Expression. I will be successful because I'll seat the judge myself. This is justice, and the country would fall apart without the stabilizing influence of the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:What in the actual gently caress. How do they justify this? This is just patent pulling out of their rear end bullshit. You want to talk about activist judges and legislating from the bench? Why are we even following the Constitution anymore? Its dead, and the Roberts court just killed it. The actual ruling is literally linked in the tweet, you can click it and see exactly how they justified it, in their own words. quote:A neutral benefit quote:Maine may provide a strictly secular education in its public schools. But BCS and Temple Academy - like numerous other recipients of Maine tuition assistance payments—are not public schools. In order to provide an education to children who live in certain parts of its far-flung State, Maine has decided not to operate schools of its own, but instead to It seems like the particular facts of Maine's program, where public funding could be directed to secular private schools without regard for public education requirements, made it easy for the Court to rule this way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
More importantly, where the choice of where to direct the funds was made by the parent, not the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The actual ruling is literally linked in the tweet, you can click it and see exactly how they justified it, in their own words. They shouldn't be using public education funds on private anything, IMHO. That money is earmarked for education for the public good, not so little Johnny can get Jesus and homophobia with his cornflakes. So if this makes Maine pull out of public funding of private education cool. But we both know its going to result in Maine funding religious education, which is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Oracle posted:They shouldn't be using public education funds on private anything, IMHO. That money is earmarked for education for the public good, not so little Johnny can get Jesus and homophobia with his cornflakes. So if this makes Maine pull out of public funding of private education cool. But we both know its going to result in Maine funding religious education, which is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:It sounds like the program only applies where there are no public schools. More importantly, its education funding. It should go to whichever school educates the kids best. Yeah, it's not like public schools are directly under attack from the same group of people in a coordinated attack on the public's ability to not be intertwined with Christian Dominionism. C'mon guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:So private and explicitly religious schools get public funds. TBH the problem is including private schools and then trying to legislate out the religious ones. Don't let taxpayer money be sent to private schools whatsoever and things are fine. All this really did was shut down any halfway honest attempt to implement the GOP's "school choice" ideas in a way that didn't fund churches. Those of us who have always opposed such policy because of how difficult it is to exclude religion aren't surprised by this ruling, though at least in the future when politicians go on about choice and vouchers there's no more fig leaf and it's entirely a ploy to fund religious education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Kinger_DC/status/1539249349330358272 Second case: quote:In Mohamud v. Weyker, a federal task force agent weaved a web of lies to frame Somali immigrant Hamdi Mohamud for a crime she didn't commit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Immunity for attempted murder is the kind of thing you'd say to parody qualified immunity. Now someone's going to link a bunch of cases where cops murdered people and got immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:What in the actual gently caress. How do they justify this? This is just patent pulling out of their rear end bullshit. You want to talk about activist judges and legislating from the bench? Why are we even following the Constitution anymore? Its dead, and the Roberts court just killed it. So curious about something that I'm hoping those in the know can go into some depth on... My background is in STEM but my understanding of Law is that it actually does have a basis in Logic and in fact one of the three major sections of the LSAT is concerned entirely with solving Logic Puzzles. In regards to the above, I'm curious about Law as an academic discipline and as a field and how the Roberts court is being perceived by academia and Law experts? Every academic discipline or field has individuals whose voices command an elevated level of respect due to their performance within the field and/or their contributions to the field's advancement. My understanding is that the SCJ's are essentially the All-Stars of Law; the Einsteins, the Oppenheimers, etc. How are the other experts in the field of Law; the most well respected professors and voices of authority, responding to the Roberts court? Even with the recent Abortion decision it felt (from what little I've read) like there was at least some thin veneer cover of legitimacy for their reasoning, but this decision seems just...cynical. Like as if the most respected Physicists just came out and announced to the public that they've been completely faking their results the entire time. If the field of Law and the education and training Law students go through is centered around making arguments on a basis of Logical Reasoning with the Constitution as a foundation, how does a Law professor explain to their students why some of the most respected authorities in their field just announced that "no, in fact, we actually just make this poo poo up as we go." -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:but my understanding of Law is that it actually does have a basis in Logic Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The actual ruling is literally linked in the tweet, you can click it and see exactly how they justified it, in their own words. Not just secular private schools, but "non sectarian" religious private schools, while excluding sectarian ones. Breyer's multi justice dissent, and presumably Sotomayor's own, argue that this is wrongly decided but 1) on fairly narrow grounds ("there's enough wiggle room that based on previous precedent the maine legislature should be deferred to here") and 2) Espinoza, the decision that actually does say some of the things that are enraging people, was a bit too wide but isn't pants on head insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
Oracle posted:They shouldn't be using public education funds on private anything, IMHO. That money is earmarked for education for the public good, not so little Johnny can get Jesus and homophobia with his cornflakes. So if this makes Maine pull out of public funding of private education cool. But we both know its going to result in Maine funding religious education, which is bullshit. well yes, ideally the whole point would be moot because the whole country has and funds excellent public schools rather than pursuing this nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Not thinking big enough. Found a satanic school or a madrassa and apply for the program
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:And it won't get funded because of some pretext. They are fully aware of their own inconsistency, but it's irrelevant. You may be pleased to know, then, that Islamic private schools have been funded with vouchers / tuition assistance under this sort of jurisprudence. It's also what caused Louisiana to cancel their religious school push.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:So curious about something that I'm hoping those in the know can go into some depth on... The left's argument here is that government must be entirely independent of anything remotely touching religion. This any public funding of religion is banned..that has merit. But the ruling here is that they also can't prohibit, which government is doing when programs specifically exclude based on a religious test (program requires accreditation *And* secular status. That second requirement is unconstitutional, as the schools in question are accredited schools, and if they didn't teach religion they would be included in the funding (vouchers based on parental school choice). The question before the court was "which part of the first amendment takes priority", and again, the left is screaming because the court ruled for the second part and not the first part. As most teachers are lefty, there's a lot of teeth gnashing and safe space seeking going on in schools when cases like this come down, but *regardless* of the ruling someone is going to be upset. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The constitution is sometimes seemingly self contradictory. Example here being, you can't establish a religion and you also can't prohibit people from practicing their religion. The left focuses entirely on the former part, the right focuses on the latter. The ruling is based on the latter side of it (can't prohibit). And the court's rationale is blatantly partisan since nothing about the law prohibits someone from practicing their religion. They can practice it all they want, with their own funds. The public should not be forced to pay for it (per the first part of the clause).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:And the court's rationale is blatantly partisan since nothing about the law prohibits someone from practicing their religion. They can practice it all they want, with their own funds. The public should not be forced to pay for it (per the first part of the clause).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
Paying for schools which teach religion using tax dollars No school is excluded from funding under the current law. They just couldn't push https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Christian_Education onto kids with tax dollars; if they wanted to run a school using tax dollars, it had to be secular. Now they can push whatever they want and make the state pay for it. Next step will be defunding the secular option so kids have no choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Paying for schools which teach religion using tax dollars Source?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:They're not paying for religion. They're paying for *schools* lol look at this credulous goon (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
It is also not a leftist position that there should be a separation of church and state. That is the uncontroversial mainstream opinion, not a radical one.Grip it and rip it posted:lol look at this credulous goon It's his bit in this thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Dameius fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Immunity for attempted murder is the kind of thing you'd say to parody qualified immunity. Now someone's going to link a bunch of cases where cops murdered people and got immunity. In both cases, the courts denied qualified immunity to the officers. So what's happening, then? If the officers can't claim qualified immunity, why aren't they being prosecuted? I hope you're ready, because this explanation is going to seem extremely stupid and incredibly inane, and the conclusion is probably going to make you even madder than the qualified immunity stuff. We're going to talk about Bivens. Although the Constitution and its various amendments spell out various guaranteed rights, they mostly don't specify what should actually happen if those rights are violated. For the most part, they don't create any specific penalties or punishment for the violator, nor do they create any specific liability for the violator. In theory, this is left up to legislatures, which are supposed to create specific legislation laying out specific responses to specific violations. For example, although the Eighteenth Amendment banned alcohol, it did not actually specify a consequence for having alcohol. Rather, it gave legislatures "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation". Actual consequences for violating the 18th Amendment were created in Congress via the National Prohibition Act, which laid down specific violations, exemptions, and punishments. Traditionally, that's how it went for the more important rights, too. If the government is currently violating your rights, the court can issue an injunction telling them to stop, but there isn't any law that clearly creates any consequences beyond that for a constitutional violation. For example, if the government is quartering soldiers in your home, you can sue to get the court to uphold your Constitutional rights by telling them to remove the soldiers from your home - but you can't sue the government afterward to get damages for the time the soldiers spent quartered in your home. As I understand it, for most of US history, the general overall judicial view was that this was the limit of what you could really do with a claim based solely on the violation of a constitutional right. Now, let's jump in the time machine and fast-forward from 1783 to the late 1960s, when the Bureau of Narcotics searched Webster Bivens' house without a warrant, then arrested him on drug charges. After the charges were dismissed, he sued for $15k in damages, on the grounds of a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The case was a bit complicated, but the important part is that the government argued (and the lower courts upheld) there was no ability to file a civil lawsuit directly against Fourth Amendment violations. But when the case made it to the Supreme Court, six justices voted to overturn that precedent. The 6-3 majority ruled that major constitutional rights were important enough that they needed to be protected even if Congress hadn't specifically provided for them to be protected, and therefore the court could allow plaintiffs to sue for damages (and not just an injunction) even in the absence of any legislative basis for doing so. Although they recognized that there was no clear Constitutional or legislative basis for this allowance, they ruled that these rights were important enough that the courts were obligated to step up and create a basis to sufficiently protect them if Congress failed to. This ruling, known as the Bivens ruling, created and firmly established the right to file civil lawsuits for damages against federal employees for violations of constitutional rights - an option which was not consistently available prior to Bivens. Why did I tell that whole story? Because the conservative wing of the court hates Bivens. They've been chipping away at it for decades now, interpreting it more and more narrowly and tightening the requirements more and more. This goes up to the modern court, which is pretty clearly hostile to Bivens. In particular, the originalists on the court loathe it - Thomas wants to narrow Bivens so tightly as to make it essentially nonexistent, and Gorsuch has openly called for Bivens to be outright overturned. The other conservatives have largely settled for whittling it down, reducing the number of situations it can apply to with each case that reaches their desks. Egbert v. Boule was the latest blow to Bivens, and the two cases that had cert rejected were Bivens cases which had been ruled against based on the Supreme Court's increasingly narrow interpretations. So what is the actual difference between that and qualified immunity? They often come up together, since both apply to civil rights lawsuits against federal officials or agents. Basically, if a court dismisses a case due to qualified immunity, they're saying that the officers may not have clearly that they were violating people's civil rights, and can't be sued for that unfortunate mistake. But when a court dismisses a case due to Bivens limitations, they're saying that even if the federal officers knew full well that they were violating people's civil rights, they still can't be sued for doing so, because Congress never made a law saying they could be sued for violating that particular right in that particular way. And that's basically what the Supreme Court is trying to drag us back to: they're trying to return things to the pre-Bivens status quo where even if a federal officer knowingly and maliciously violates someone's constitutional rights, the courts need Congressional authorization to do anything more than issue an injunction telling them to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
oh a religious test, a test specifically and unequivocally mandated in the constitution like, this isn't even a gun ownership test where your right to bear arms should constitutionally be subject to your membership in a state militia. quote: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 grievances. That is absolute. A religion wants public funds for a school? Nope. In absolute terms, nope. There is no way to wiggle around this, not without lying about the words you see on the page. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
The state cannot even *respect* an established religion. In God We Trust oversteps the line already. This is miles, miles too far. Fight me on this, and do so with the first loving amendment or walk away. if you want to get really spicy on this, look to Jefferson clarifying exactly what the founders meant on how the state can have quite literally zero opinion on any trivial religious matter whatsoever, absolutely zero input in any religious matter of any sort, period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Preventing dispersal of public funds to privately establishments is not a bar to expression. Let's say that it was for a second. Let's say that that somehow prevented expression: it would be a form of discrimination expressly mandated by the First Amendment. It is right there. it is a trivial matter to read the first amendment as clarifying that the state should not bar expression, and that it should not respect establishment of religion, and you have to pee a particularly special form of lunkheaded, jackbooted Christian nationalist to try to knife out a middle ground where you're looking for a specific form of subsidy that somehow isn't some kind of establishment Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
In summary, I'm just as shocked as you that Karen McHitlerjesus exploited fears about race and urbanization to create a school voucher system that can be unconstitutionally exploited by special interest groups! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
It takes minimal brainpower to come up with like 100 legitimate “middle grounds” between outright prohibiting the exercise of a religion and establishing a state religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
lol ok go off let's hear some Third Wayism Private-Public-Priesthood Partnerships  Fiiiine. In good ~faith~, we already don't tax 'em. Edit: On re-read, it looks like you're trying to reframe this as, to quote, "outright prohibiting the exercise of a religion" versus establishment, when nobody is talking about exclusion. Are you kidding, or are you deliberately trying to pretend people are talking about something they're not talking about? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Jefferson also was fine with the House of Representatives hosting church services because it also hosted other civic functions, so I suspect he might not have objected in quite the way you think. Much of the writing you’re thinking of is more relevant to the free exercise clause, and the remainder is more to do with avoiding a single state-established religion (as in the Anglican Church in pre-Revolution Virginia) rather than any interaction between church and state whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Maine's best bet if they want to legislate around is to apply other qualifiers that the religious schools are more likely to fail. Honestly in this specific case it doesn't feel like a huge deal but it leaves ugly precedent for future disputes about government money and religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Actually, I'll bite, I'm still up. Do you recall Jefferson's rhetoric on the subject? The topic may have been secretarianism, but do you remember the bottom line? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
I think the real bottom line is that Jefferson thought children shouldn’t be given access to religious texts until after they’d studied philosophy, so that they’d take the correct lessons from them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Jefferson thought a lot of poo poo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:58
|
|