SCOTUS rules that states can support religion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael S. Andrews on April 11, 2011 at 12:43am

And as I understand it, the Supreme Court rarely overturns one of it's own decisions!  Do you have any kind of Court Record of the case, Eric, or a good website documenting this case?  Of course, it seems blatently Unconstitutional to me!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by eric stone on April 11, 2011 at 7:43am

This past sunday's editorial in the New York Times discussed the decision, which overturned the precedent in Flast.  Kagan issued a strong dissent which the editorial featured.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Anam on April 11, 2011 at 7:45am

I believe this is the ruling you are referring to: http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110411/NEW...

 

(Note that this source seems to be a bit biased against the ruling.)

 

One thing I would like to point out is that they did not determine whether this practice is or is not constitutional, only that the taxpayers lacked standing for a case in this particular instance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian George on April 12, 2011 at 10:17pm

So who does having standing to bring a challenge?

 

I bet if the ratio of private schools was heavily weighted towards secular schools instead of religious based schools, this tax redemption scheme would have never made it on the books.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on April 13, 2011 at 1:36pm

Brian George, I don't think it would've made it, either, if those schools weren't religious, but not by much.  I support, to some extent, vouchers for private schools that are not religious.  It very well may be one way of getting private schools to drop the religious bull.  Private schools are generally SO much better than public schools.  I paid over $1,000 this year to pay for someone else's kid to go to a public school that most likely sucks.  If I must be forced to pay for that kid, I at least wanna know that the kid'll have a good education in a private school (for the same price, and if not religious) and that the kid'll be more likely to get a great paying job/career that, in turn, go to pay taxes that'll help me in the my old age.  Would rather not pay for the dang kid, but...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by leveni on April 12, 2011 at 11:24pm

Is this the case you are talking about? I think it has to be the one. If someone could confirm this.

4/04/11 - Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn

 

I found this comment in the Huffingtonpost about the same topic. By Jeff Rosenbury.

 

The ruling was the only fair ruling possible.

The court had three choices. 

It could deny standing which it did. 

It could allow standing broadly, which would allow anyone to sue the government over it's spending choices. Thus, if I don't like General Electric, I could sue them because they receive federal money. I could argue there was no due process in the payments. I could examine G.E.'s books and hold their earnings hostage. Further so could you and everyone else in the world. 

Finally the court could allow such suits only on religious grounds. Yet this itself would be an entangleme­nt on religious grounds and is not allowed by the doctrine of separation of church and state.

So how do we solve this impasse? Luckily we have two other branches of government­. The legislatur­e could do their jobs and not vote money for religious purposes. Failing that the executive could refuse to pay such moneys. Then the religious groups would be forced to sue and standing is establishe­d. 

That's how checks and balances work. 

 

Another post stated only congress could appoint an extra Judge and not Obama.

 

I skimmed through the judgment, but it's too complex for me. 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by eric stone on April 13, 2011 at 11:42am

Rosenbury's argument that you can't sue a violation  of church/state separation because the suit itself would violate the separation doesn't seem to make any sense.  One would never be able to take any action against these violations if that were true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Anam on April 13, 2011 at 11:59am

Yeah, that seems like a strange argument.

 

I'm very mixed on this whole issue. While it annoys me how the supreme court avoids certain subjects, I also think "well, better that they avoid it than have this overly conservative court declare that it's okie-dokie to give religious institutions money."

 

There was a case way back in the day where abolitionists cheered getting a case to the supreme court... until the supreme court declared that blacks were not citizens according to the constitution and therefore had no rights, and furthermore that they were technically property and since property was protected by the constitution, no law could be made to force slave owners to release their slaves.

 

Sometimes having the supreme court ignore an issue is better than having them rule on it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on April 13, 2011 at 1:28pm

Davis, you forgot to mention that women also couldn't vote legally.  So the Constitution wasn't perfect an even Thomas Jefferson said that a future generation shouldn't be forced to live by the older generations' rules.  But, the larger part of the Constitution should be left alone, since it now represents all of us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Anam on April 13, 2011 at 3:33pm

My comment wasn't intended to be a judgement of the constitution. Rather, it was an example of how supreme court rulings can sometimes undo years of progress. As such, I would be careful what you wish for.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by leveni on April 13, 2011 at 7:51pm

Yeh, it does seem strange.

Have there ever been any previous cases where governments have been sued for how they spent or didn't spend the peoples money? I'm sure the case must mention such examples. Maybe they gave the money to the religious institution because the money is used for educating kids in schools. Rather than because of religious reasons. (But I haven't read the court transcript, and I don't have the time to do so)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on April 13, 2011 at 1:24pm

This is way too big to be ignored.  My first reaction is: we need to organize and sue! Our country is nearly bankrupt...we can't afford any more stupidity.  My second reaction is: hey, wait a minute...what will they fund exactly, how did this topic/case even come up, was there a specific law suit?  You've left out some details, I think.  Please fill us in.  This sounds HUGE.  Guess our Constitution doesn't mean sqat anymore.  Afterall, Obamacare somehow passed/stayed, as have all of those UNbalanced budgets from years ago, as did income taxes!  But we can sue/protest on this one, can't we?  There should even be some Muslims, Jews, Buddists and other superstitious peoples who don't trust this.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page