The New (TM) [SCOTUS] thread we dread updates for

1363739414244

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    So is this the other shoe dropping from the rulings in the last few days? Like this seems a massive overreach of Separation of Church and State.

    It more feels like Roberts throwing a bone to the Dominionist set, after the earlier rulings on workplace discrimination and abortion (even if the latter was really him doing them a favor that they wouldn't grasp.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Maybe states should stop funding private education.

    That's what Montana did and Roberts said that wasn't an option. It's a large part of the pants-on-head craziness of this ruling.

    I mean, its pretty obviously that private schools are part of the pipeline for rich people, so its important that they keep more of their money by making private school cheaper, but still out of the range of the poors.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    destroyah87Netscape
  • GilgaronGilgaron Registered User regular
    So... if they have to fund them but don't want to, the tax credit is going to be for $1.00, with rigorous documentation, so it costs more to apply for than to receive?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    So is this the other shoe dropping from the rulings in the last few days? Like this seems a massive overreach of Separation of Church and State.

    It more feels like Roberts throwing a bone to the Dominionist set, after the earlier rulings on workplace discrimination and abortion (even if the latter was really him doing them a favor that they wouldn't grasp.)

    Roberts is the Bo Schembechler of Supreme Court Justices. He advances the ball in three yard increments, but he's always advancing the ball. And sometimes a big play happens. That's this case.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    AngelHedgieBigJoeMmonikerAistanBlackDragon480FencingsaxMillzagdrobshrykeNetscapeKetBraMatevpainfulPleasance
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    So is this the other shoe dropping from the rulings in the last few days? Like this seems a massive overreach of Separation of Church and State.

    Hes a deeply religious conservative. I think why he ruled this way kind of stands on its own in that regard.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    zepherin
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Gilgaron wrote: »
    So... if they have to fund them but don't want to, the tax credit is going to be for $1.00, with rigorous documentation, so it costs more to apply for than to receive?

    I am guessing it winds up like that so they are stuck with some random non functional tax credit on the books because GOP feels.

    Styrofoam SammichN1tSt4lker
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Has the charter school grift moved to religious schools too?

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Has the charter school grift moved to religious schools too?

    Since the beginning, essentially.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    mrondeaujdarksunMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkerIncenjucarMoridin889BlackDragon480knitdanMillshrykeDark_SideSpoitKetBraboogedybooGennenalyse Ruebenspool32BullheadzepherinMatevMegaMekDavid Walgasnever diepainfulPleasance
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Has the charter school grift moved to religious schools too?

    I'm pretty sure charter school grift is just newer, more secular rich white people trying to get some of what the religious rich white people already had.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    zepherinpainfulPleasance
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Welp

    So SCOTUS is basically mandating that states spend even more public money to send kids to schools with lack of accountability

    Bullheadzepherin
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited June 30
    Welp

    So SCOTUS is basically mandating that states spend even more public money to send kids to schools with lack of accountability

    The legislature can make the tax credits or funding useless. Its clunky but there's recourse.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Captain InertiaMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkershrykezepherin
  • NebulousQNebulousQ Registered User regular
    I don't fully understand all the legal ramifications of the ruling, but it doesn't seem like the Supreme Court is forcing Montana to have the tax credit/scholarship program in question? It seemed like the majority opinion said the reason that the Montana Supreme Court shut it down is invalid and so the tax credit program should continue to operate. That doesn't seem to stop Montana from just deciding they don't want to do the program anymore?

    Hedgethorn
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Welp

    So SCOTUS is basically mandating that states spend even more public money to send kids to schools with lack of accountability

    The legislature can make the tax credits or funding useless. Its clunky but there's recourse.

    This feels like a temporary fix until SCOTUS says the funding has to be legitimate and not like 1 dollar.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »


    Staff writer for Slate with Part of Sotoymayor's dissent.

    It's a good thing religious schools aren't lifesaving healthcare, otherwise this would be like the Supreme Court mandating people eat broccoli!

    DevoutlyApatheticBrodyCaptain InertiaPhoenix-DMoridin889emp123BlackDragon480FencingsaxAimshrykeSpoitKetBraGennenalyse RuebenBullheadzepherinJaysonFourMatevMegaMekkimeTofystedethpainfulPleasance
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    NebulousQ wrote: »
    I don't fully understand all the legal ramifications of the ruling, but it doesn't seem like the Supreme Court is forcing Montana to have the tax credit/scholarship program in question? It seemed like the majority opinion said the reason that the Montana Supreme Court shut it down is invalid and so the tax credit program should continue to operate. That doesn't seem to stop Montana from just deciding they don't want to do the program anymore?

    Yeah, this seems like a DACA-like decision that really doesn’t mean as much as it initially sounds like. It seems like the solution is just to do the same thing but with a different rationale. Instead of saying “we are stopping funding of private schools because religious schools are using that credit”, just say “we are stopping funding of private schools because of budget cuts” or some shit.

  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Welp

    So SCOTUS is basically mandating that states spend even more public money to send kids to schools with lack of accountability

    The legislature can make the tax credits or funding useless. Its clunky but there's recourse.

    This feels like a temporary fix until SCOTUS says the funding has to be legitimate and not like 1 dollar.

    So? If SCOTUS wants to legislate, make them spell it the fuck out.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Dark_SideKetBrazepherinoverride367
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    I would be entirely okay with that decision if it was paired with a requirement to stop exempting religious organizations from taxation.

    MorganVOrcaMoridin889kimepainfulPleasance
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    The way the shitty ruling can be frame to the younger crowd, is likely to accelerate the religious right getting it's shit kicked in. I'll have to see if I can dig it up, but there has been polling done that shows eroding separation of church and state really doesn't play well with the younger crowd, even some of those that are religious. Roberts probably things he made a clever play that advances his agenda, but this is going to bite them in the ass going forward.

    Yes, people have shown how this shitty ruling can be made moot. Either make the credit worthless because it's only like a dollar or the better option of telling the rich to fuck off, "we're not giving your tax payer money so that your kid can have a cheaper tuition." I suspect long term this wasn't a smart play on Roberts part, he probably thinks he was clever but it really easy to run a message about how this erodes the separation of church and state and why people should give a fuck about who is on the bench. AKA this could be a much needed wakeup call for people younger than boomers, that aren't voting, to finally get their asses to the polls because both sides aren't the same and one side wants to shove their brand of religion down your throat through the government.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    I'm confused. How does "A state need not subsidize private education." force Montana to reinstate it's tax credit?

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    So if the state is funding private schools, aren't they no longer private schools? But you have to pay a lot to get in?

    Starting to feel like the wealthy see basic education as a private sector thing with shitty welfare school for the poor.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Captain InertiaBlackDragon480ToxN1tSt4lkerMoridin889ShadowfireBullheadHeirDoodmannMetzger MeisterMatevDavid Walgasnever dieAbsoluteZerokimeTofystedethpainfulPleasance
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    edited July 1
    Tox wrote: »
    I'm confused. How does "A state need not subsidize private education." force Montana to reinstate it's tax credit?

    I think the issue is that a Christian school claimed the tax credit, so Montana cancelled the credit entirely, but also specifically because Christian schools claimed the credit. So it's basically the Muslim Ban thing all over again, except this time using the words used as a clear indication of the intent. So Roberts said "you have to repeal the credit with a pure heart."

    Edit:
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So if the state is funding private schools, aren't they no longer private schools? But you have to pay a lot to get in?

    Starting to feel like the wealthy see basic education as a private sector thing with shitty welfare school for the poor.

    I don't think it was technically funding private schools, although it might as well have been.

    The sentiment stands.

    Brody on
    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So if the state is funding private schools, aren't they no longer private schools? But you have to pay a lot to get in?

    Starting to feel like the wealthy see basic education as a private sector thing with shitty welfare school for the poor.

    The wealthy want to divert taxpayer money to their own pockets in return for poisoning the minds of future voters, yes

    NetscapeMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkerKetBraHefflingHacksawMoridin889Stabbity StyleFencingsaxEddyGennenalyse RuebenBullheadmonikerI ZimbraGONG-00HeirRhesus PositiveIncenjucaroverride367JaysonFourMatevKamarMegaMekNobeardDavid Walgasnever dieAbsoluteZerokimepainfulPleasance
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Did the Montana legislature repeal the tax credit, or was it a court order?

    If the Supreme Court is just returning to the law in the books, that's bad in that it tramples on the separation of church and state, but at least it's not creating a new requirement to fund public schools, and the Montana legislature would be free to cut the tax credit for all private schools (though I have no idea if they are likely to do so).

    MrMonroe
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Copied from CNBC
    Roberts wrote that a decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate a scholarship program on the basis that it would provide funding to religious schools in addition to secular schools "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools."

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    edited July 1
    Brody wrote: »
    Copied from CNBC
    Roberts wrote that a decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate a scholarship program on the basis that it would provide funding to religious schools in addition to secular schools "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools."

    Wait, is he saying that the reasoning is invalid because of that?

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Ok, so there was a tax-credit program to provide scholarships in Montana started in 2015. Montana constitution bars "any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies ... for any sectarian purpose ... [including] ... to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution." (Sorry if any of that looks weird or looks wrong, I'm copying it from the CNBC article) Montana Department of Revenue made a rule that stopped people from using the funds for religious schools.

    Three mothers who relied on the program took the department to court. A trial court agreed with the parents, and then the Montana Supreme Court said the trial court decision was against the state constitution, and then struck the tax-credit in its entirety.

    So, I'm not really sure who is in the right here. Was the Montana Supreme Court not legislating by removing a tax credit that was created by (presumably) the legislature? But also, the Montana Constitution is pretty clear that the tax credit can not be used to pay for religious schools.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Copied from CNBC
    Roberts wrote that a decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate a scholarship program on the basis that it would provide funding to religious schools in addition to secular schools "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools."

    Wait, is he saying that the reasoning is invalid because of that?

    Yes. It is an inversion of how everyone until him read the establishment clause. And as Brody points out, the Montana state constitution explicitly forbids this. It also flies in the face of the court not taking up the New Jersey funding case (link goes to NY Times, paywall warning) where the state supreme court decided that churches couldn't receive state preservation funds as that would be considered an endorsement by the state. It puts lots of questions out there as to how states are supposed to balance these things and really dredges up some crazy situations like what if it a Jewish or Muslim or (and I really, really hope to see this happen) Satanic school opens in Montana or any other state. Not to mention the constant headache that NY has with regards to Hasidic Jews taking over public school districts.

    It's why I keep referring to this as pants-on-head crazy. It isn't only a poor decision. It's poorly reasoned, poorly argued in the order by the majority, and frankly does the opposite of everything Roberts like to crow about. It makes me, and likely others, see the court in a more blatantly partisan, right-wing light.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    monikerDoctorArchBlackDragon480Matevemp123
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    How can a tax credit go to something that doesn't pay taxes?

    Bullhead
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    How can a tax credit go to something that doesn't pay taxes?

    My understanding is that it was more like a scholarship or 529 plan, but for primary education.

    zepherinBlackDragon480
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Well, fuck:


    After reading my latest Post report, @hughhewitt tells his radio audience this morning that he hears from several leading conservatives that Justice Alito, 70, is considering retirement, and adds that he also hears the Alito family is ready to leave Washington, D.C.

    Robert Costa is a political pundit.

    The LGM headline for this is "Speaking of Far Right Nutjobs, Say Hello to Associate Justice Neomi Rao", which is a thought that invokes extential horror.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JragghenSpecial KBrodyzepherinBlackDragon480HeirFencingsaxJaysonFourNetscapeBullhead
  • Hi I'm Vee!Hi I'm Vee! Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C E Registered User regular
    We're less than 6 months from the election, I'm sure McConnell won't confirm a new justice until we have an election to determine the mandate of the people.

    How to properly greet me:
    DqCFqdL.png
    DoodmannRhesus PositiveBrodyzepherindestroyah87monikerCaptain InertiaSeñorAmorboogedybooTomantaShadowfireOrcaBlackDragon480VishNubHeirAistan38thDoeCommander ZoomMoridin889override367FencingsaxMatevHacksawemp123CalicaKamarBullheadNobeardwanderingFleur de AlysHefflingnever dieAbsoluteZerokime
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    70 sure is early retirement for a supreme court justice.

    Captain CarrotN1tSt4lkerBrodyzepherinOrcaCouscousMoridin889FencingsaxKoopahTroopahNobeard
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 1
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    70 sure is early retirement for a supreme court justice.

    I'd say that the pressure to get Alito and Thomas out the door is a sign that some in the GOP aren't confident in November.

    Edit: Let me just say that if Rao is elevated to the Supreme Court, that alone would be justification for court packing.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Phoenix-DBigJoeMCaptain InertiaboogedybooBlackDragon480ShadowfireHeirWACriminalFencingsaxshrykeGennenalyse RuebenSpoitNetscapeMatevHacksawNiryaKamarBullheadCantideNobeardFleur de Alys
  • Special KSpecial K Registered User regular
    Well, fuck:
    The LGM headline for this is "Speaking of Far Right Nutjobs, Say Hello to Associate Justice Neomi Rao", which is a thought that invokes extential horror.

    I mean, sure - but fundamentally she'd vote with the "conservative" wing, just as Alito did.

    Would there really be much of a functional difference in how the SC functions if someone like that were appointed to replace him?

    Styrofoam SammichCaptain InertiaNetscapeMegaMekNobeard
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Special K wrote: »
    Well, fuck:
    The LGM headline for this is "Speaking of Far Right Nutjobs, Say Hello to Associate Justice Neomi Rao", which is a thought that invokes extential horror.

    I mean, sure - but fundamentally she'd vote with the "conservative" wing, just as Alito did.

    Would there really be much of a functional difference in how the SC functions if someone like that were appointed to replace him?

    Yes. Rao is even more partisan, and has written decisions in her current position that are complete messes.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    monikerBlackDragon480FencingsaxshrykeGennenalyse RuebenJaysonFourToxemp123
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited July 1
    Special K wrote: »
    Well, fuck:
    The LGM headline for this is "Speaking of Far Right Nutjobs, Say Hello to Associate Justice Neomi Rao", which is a thought that invokes extential horror.

    I mean, sure - but fundamentally she'd vote with the "conservative" wing, just as Alito did.

    Would there really be much of a functional difference in how the SC functions if someone like that were appointed to replace him?

    Hard to tell how it would change things until a nominee is put forward. Its 9 idiosyncratic weirdos with no accountability.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Special KSpecial K Registered User regular
    Yes. Rao is even more partisan, and has written decisions in her current position that are complete messes.

    Wouldn't sloppy legal workmanship be "preferable" to more rigorous, careful malfeasance given that the decision would still go the same way?

    The former might appear to offer a greater attack surface for overturning decisions in future.

    I guess if both options are "evil", I'd rather have the one that borders on incompetence vs the competent option.

    NetscapeMegaMek
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Special K wrote: »
    Yes. Rao is even more partisan, and has written decisions in her current position that are complete messes.

    Wouldn't sloppy legal workmanship be "preferable" to more rigorous, careful malfeasance given that the decision would still go the same way?

    The former might appear to offer a greater attack surface for overturning decisions in future.

    I guess if both options are "evil", I'd rather have the one that borders on incompetence vs the competent option.

    There's a saying about the Supreme Court - "The Court is not final because it is right, it is right because it is final." What this means is that because the Court is the final arbiter of the law, what it says goes. Rao as an Associate Justice would be able to put highly partisan theories of dubious provenance into case law, and there would be little recourse.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PreacherBigJoeMSoggybiscuitzepherinPolaritieMartini_PhilosophermonikerStabbity StyleboogedybooDoctorArchBlackDragon480ShadowfireTetraNitroCubaneMoridin889FencingsaxshrykeGennenalyse RuebenJaysonFourMunkus BeaverMatevHacksawNiryaemp123Nobeardnever die
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Special K wrote: »
    Yes. Rao is even more partisan, and has written decisions in her current position that are complete messes.

    Wouldn't sloppy legal workmanship be "preferable" to more rigorous, careful malfeasance given that the decision would still go the same way?

    The former might appear to offer a greater attack surface for overturning decisions in future.

    I guess if both options are "evil", I'd rather have the one that borders on incompetence vs the competent option.

    I mean, they are also making a play for a younger person. Alito is going to be off the bench in 30 years one way or another. Another Kavanaugh just stretches the time that we have to deal with the current particular balance of justices.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    The thing about these rumors is that they aren't coming from the Justices. They are just some people talking to try to get a young justice in. It's disinformation at it's finest. Maybe Alito is thinking of retirement, or maybe during a diner he said he was "tired of this shit" and a bunch of talking heads started talking. There is the more important fact that nobody can make Alito do anything he doesn't want to. No pundent or political appointee, and judges, love being judges. It's an old person and all the young people have to listen to them, and they can make presidents do things they don't want too. He really has no incentive to give up that power.

    spool32JragghenFencingsaxHappylilElf
Sign In or Register to comment.