New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Illegally stacked SCOTUS attacks church/state separation and public schools

Bugsy McGurk

President
Cockeyed lefty culture has kids literally slaughtering one another in schools…lefty continues war on faith and views general moral component as anathema.

The selfsame nutcases who demand drag queens deliver story time and who insist 4-12 year olds be subjected to trans and gay education hike skirts at any thought of non-deviant exposure.
Another brain damaged GOP cultist who just can’t focus on the topic.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Uh oh! I quoted Cornell law...That is off topic for leftty.
 

RickWA

Senator
Another brain damaged GOP cultist who just can’t focus on the topic.
I focused on the topic. You’re gonna need a lotta trannnies/deviants of all stripes to ram down your desired societal collapse. Then again, Sodom wasn’t built in a day…eh?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Uh oh! I quoted Cornell law...That is off topic for leftty.
This one thinks quoting “parties” is quoting Cornell law. His mind is completely shot.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Facts
Maine’s constitution mandates the state legislature to require towns to provide “support and maintenance” of public schools at the towns’ own expenses. To do so, the legislature divided the state into 260 school administrative units (“SAUs”) and required that each SAU “make suitable provisions” to maintain and support public schools. Less than half of the SAUs contain a public secondary school. Therefore, a Maine statute allows the SAUs without public secondary schools to either contract with a public secondary school in a nearby SAU or to pay tuition for a public or an “approved” private school of the parent’s choice. To be “approved,” a private school must meet accreditation, reporting, and auditing requirements and must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.”
Carson, Gillis, and Nelson (collectively “Carson”) are parents who live in SAUs that have no public secondary schools. Their SAUs instead have chosen to pay tuition assistance for parents to send their children to “approved” private schools. The Nelsons currently send their child to a nonsectarian school; however, they would prefer to send her to an accredited religious school, but cannot afford to do so without tuition assistance. The Carsons and Gillises currently send their children to an accredited religious school and receive no tuition assistance. Consequently, on August 21, 2018, Carson sued Makin, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, in the District of Maine, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement infringes on their “First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.”
Makin responded by alleging that Carson did not have standing and did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. Both parties stipulated to the facts that Carson’s choice of schools were “biblically integrated” and refused to hire homosexual teachers. Additionally, the parties stipulated that the religious schools would not accept tuition assistance if they would be subjected to the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Federal District Court for the District of Maine held that Carson had standing and rejected Carson’s contention that the Supreme Court’s holding in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley (“Trinity Lutheran”) upset the First Circuit Court of Appeals’s holding in Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education (“Fullit”) because Trinity Lutheran involved discrimination based on religious identity rather than “religious uses of funding.” Thus, the District Court upheld Maine’s educational funding law.
On July 23, 2019, Carson appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Two weeks after the First Circuit heard oral arguments, the United States Supreme Court, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (“Espinoza”) struck down a provision of Montana’s Constitution that prohibited state aid to church-run private schools.
The First Circuit held that Carson satisfied the redressability requirement of standing—the requirement that a favorable decision will remedy their injury—because a ruling in Carson’s favor would give them an “opportunity” to enroll their children in religious secondary school. Next, the First Circuit rejected Carson’s argument that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement was religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and thus, the Court upheld Maine’s law. Relying on Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran, the First Circuit distinguished discrimination based on religious “status,” which is subject to strict scrutiny, from discrimination based on religious “use.” Furthermore, the First Circuit reasoned that Maine’s funding rule was in place to ensure equal access to public—not private—education and thus simply by refusing to subsidize religious schools, Maine’s legislature did not show “impermissible animus” against religion.
The United States Supreme Court granted Carson certiorari on July 2, 2021.

Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I focused on the topic. You’re gonna need a lotta trannnies/deviants of all stripes to ram down your desired societal collapse. Then again, Sodom wasn’t built in a day…eh?
What a weird place for your “gay talk.”

I’m sure you know you have “issues.”

;-)
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Facts
Maine’s constitution mandates the state legislature to require towns to provide “support and maintenance” of public schools at the towns’ own expenses. To do so, the legislature divided the state into 260 school administrative units (“SAUs”) and required that each SAU “make suitable provisions” to maintain and support public schools. Less than half of the SAUs contain a public secondary school. Therefore, a Maine statute allows the SAUs without public secondary schools to either contract with a public secondary school in a nearby SAU or to pay tuition for a public or an “approved” private school of the parent’s choice. To be “approved,” a private school must meet accreditation, reporting, and auditing requirements and must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.”
Carson, Gillis, and Nelson (collectively “Carson”) are parents who live in SAUs that have no public secondary schools. Their SAUs instead have chosen to pay tuition assistance for parents to send their children to “approved” private schools. The Nelsons currently send their child to a nonsectarian school; however, they would prefer to send her to an accredited religious school, but cannot afford to do so without tuition assistance. The Carsons and Gillises currently send their children to an accredited religious school and receive no tuition assistance. Consequently, on August 21, 2018, Carson sued Makin, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, in the District of Maine, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement infringes on their “First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.”
Makin responded by alleging that Carson did not have standing and did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. Both parties stipulated to the facts that Carson’s choice of schools were “biblically integrated” and refused to hire homosexual teachers. Additionally, the parties stipulated that the religious schools would not accept tuition assistance if they would be subjected to the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Federal District Court for the District of Maine held that Carson had standing and rejected Carson’s contention that the Supreme Court’s holding in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley (“Trinity Lutheran”) upset the First Circuit Court of Appeals’s holding in Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education (“Fullit”) because Trinity Lutheran involved discrimination based on religious identity rather than “religious uses of funding.” Thus, the District Court upheld Maine’s educational funding law.
On July 23, 2019, Carson appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Two weeks after the First Circuit heard oral arguments, the United States Supreme Court, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (“Espinoza”) struck down a provision of Montana’s Constitution that prohibited state aid to church-run private schools.
The First Circuit held that Carson satisfied the redressability requirement of standing—the requirement that a favorable decision will remedy their injury—because a ruling in Carson’s favor would give them an “opportunity” to enroll their children in religious secondary school. Next, the First Circuit rejected Carson’s argument that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement was religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and thus, the Court upheld Maine’s law. Relying on Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran, the First Circuit distinguished discrimination based on religious “status,” which is subject to strict scrutiny, from discrimination based on religious “use.” Furthermore, the First Circuit reasoned that Maine’s funding rule was in place to ensure equal access to public—not private—education and thus simply by refusing to subsidize religious schools, Maine’s legislature did not show “impermissible animus” against religion.
The United States Supreme Court granted Carson certiorari on July 2, 2021.

Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Your point, if any?
 

RickWA

Senator
More of your “gay talk” instead of addressing the topic.

Your “issues” are quite apparent. Do you confront them?
It was YOU who just said that referencing "trannies" is characterized as "gay talk". Are you trying to walk this back now, Bugsy? Are transgender folks "gay" as you suggest?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It was YOU who just said that referencing "trannies" is characterized as "gay talk". Are you trying to walk this back now, Bugsy? Are transgender folks "gay" as you suggest?
Your “gay talk” is getting repetitive and boring.

Try to address the topic instead of airing your “issues.” Just try.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Looks like freedom wins again...Maybe you will get lucky on gun control and it will be illegal for Sane and Republicans to stop murders from happening.

You lost.
 

Spamature

President
How would you know...You can't even define what a woman is, thus the idea that you can define what the Supreme Court is doing is highly doubtful.
It is a human being of the female gender.
Why does the word confuse so many of you right-wingers, so much so, that you are to the point where you have to go around asking everyone ?
 

Spamature

President
The illegally stacked SCOTUS continues to take a wrecking ball to the Constitution, this time striking down a law because it does not allow for governmental funding of religious schools. At the same time, the right wing’s attack against public education continues…


The right wing’s destruction of the America formed by the Constitution continues.
The Black Hebrew Israelites are going to love this decision by those white devils.

Pretty soon, they will be able to charge you tuition on their storefront curriculum


And you better not be late on your loan payments
 
Top