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.)
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."
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?
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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."
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).
+1
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
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."
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?
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
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."
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.
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.
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
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.
Posts
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.)
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.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
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.
Hes a deeply religious conservative. I think why he ruled this way kind of stands on its own in that regard.
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.
Since the beginning, essentially.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's a good thing religious schools aren't lifesaving healthcare, otherwise this would be like the Supreme Court mandating people eat broccoli!
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.
So? If SCOTUS wants to legislate, make them spell it the fuck out.
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.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Starting to feel like the wealthy see basic education as a private sector thing with shitty welfare school for the poor.
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:
I don't think it was technically funding private schools, although it might as well have been.
The sentiment stands.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
The wealthy want to divert taxpayer money to their own pockets in return for poisoning the minds of future voters, yes
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).
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Wait, is he saying that the reasoning is invalid because of that?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
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.
My understanding is that it was more like a scholarship or 529 plan, but for primary education.
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.
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.
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.
Hard to tell how it would change things until a nominee is put forward. Its 9 idiosyncratic weirdos with no accountability.
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.
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.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain