The SCOTUS Thread

[KCfromNC]

Believing what one believes, whether it be in revisionist history, or the rejection the scientific evidence that the universe was created, does not give science denying Authoritarians any special rights. I reject allowing them to brainwash my child; and I don't approve of financing their scheme.

That's fine, feel free not to take advantage of public schools. That's a choice everyone with children has. Along with that choice comes the consequence of having to find another way to educate your children. Another choice that everyone with children makes.

Where is goes off the rails is pretending that because one believes something they should have a different, special set of choices that others don't. But no, simply believing stuff doesn't mean you get to avoid paying taxes.

 

[KCfromNC]

What is being taught in public schools is that of a religious organization.

What specific doctrines of exactly which religion are you alluding to here?

I don't believe what they believe.

Failing to uncritically accept someone else's opinion isn't a religion.

 

[HARK!]

That's fine, feel free not to take advantage of public schools.

I can get an autopsy for free; but you won't see me running down to the morgue to take advantage of that offer.

That's a choice everyone with children has. Along with that choice comes the consequence of having to find another way to educate your children. Another choice that everyone with children makes.

Deciding whether or not to have your child brainwashed, or go to jail for not having your child in school, and then having your child become a ward of the State, really isn't a choice.

Where is goes off the rails is pretending that because one believes something they should have a different, special set of choices that others don't. But no, simply believing stuff doesn't mean you get to avoid paying taxes.

So you would agree that you should pay taxes to send children to a school that teaches beliefs of my choosing?

 

[HARK!]

What specific doctrines of exactly which religion are you alluding to here?

Atheism is at the top of the list; but let's throw Islam in too.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm gonna hafta agree with this decision. If the tuition vouchers can be used anywhere, then you can't really say that the government is promoting a religion when it's used for a religious school. If you deny the religious school the voucher, you can be seen as discriminating against the religion.

If the government specifically endorsed a religion's schools over others, then we would have a problem.

To be fair the whole reason for the voucher system was implemented to allow Christian schools to benefit from government funds.

 

[HARK!]

To be fair the whole reason for the voucher system was implemented to allow Christian schools to benefit from government funds.

In which state? I have seen states that pushed them to give parents choices.

 

[Larniavc]

In which state? I have seen states that pushed them to give parents choices.

In all if the states where this has happened.

 

[HARK!]

In all if the states where this has happened.

That's not true.

 

[Yttrium]

To be fair the whole reason for the voucher system was implemented to allow Christian schools to benefit from government funds.

Yeah, I don't mind Christian (or other religious) schools getting government funds as long as they're accredited and the government isn't playing favorites.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not true.

Which states is it untrue in?

 

[HARK!]

Which states is it untrue in?

See: Shifting the Burden of Proof

 

[Larniavc]

See: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Fair enough.
Let’s start with Michigan: de Vos’s back yard.

 

[KCfromNC]

I can get an autopsy for free; but you won't see me running down to the morgue to take advantage of that offer.

Not sure I see the relevance.

Deciding whether or not to have your child brainwashed, or go to jail for not having your child in school, and then having your child become a ward of the State, really isn't a choice.

Are there no private schools in your area? How about homeschooling?

So you would agree that you should pay taxes to send children to a school that teaches beliefs of my choosing?

No idea why you'd ask a question after reading what I wrote. I can't even guess which misunderstand would lead to that.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheism is at the top of the list; but let's throw Islam in too.

Which school is teaching that there isn't a god? Please be specific - names, dates, curriculum. Same with Islam.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, I don't mind Christian (or other religious) schools getting government funds as long as they're accredited and the government isn't playing favorites.

They'd have to follow the same rules as public secular schools - such as not teaching religion to their students. If they do that, no problem.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Just out:

NY loses the Gun law case in the SCOTUS (6-3):


NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf



The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.

The government will have to show, Thomas says, that a gun regulation "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The court rejects the "two-part" approach used by the courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases. "In keeping with Heller," Thomas writes, "we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."



In Him,

Bill

 

[HARK!]

20.)


In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.


The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’s first significant decision on gun rights in over a decade.

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

21.)

• The issue: The case involves whether North Carolina legislators may intervene to defend the state’s voter identification law in constitutional challenges and lawsuits concerning the Voting Rights Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The questions presented:
  1. "Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant.
  2. "Whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion.
  3. "Whether Petitioners are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation."[2]

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

22.)

• The issue: The case concerns the procedure under federal law for a convicted inmate to challenge a state's method of execution.

• The questions presented:
  1. "Whether an inmate's as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a § 1983 action if the inmate pleads an alternative method of execution not currently authorized by state law."
  2. "Whether, if such a challenge must be raised in habeas, it constitutes a successive petition where the challenge would not have been ripe at the time of the inmate's first habeas petition."[2]

Nance v. Ward


Nance v. Ward - Scotus

 

[HARK!]

23.)

• The issue: The case concerns Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, specifically related to the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The question presented: "Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under Section 1983 based simply on an officer's failure to provide the warnings prescribed in Miranda."[2]

Vega v. Tekoh

Vega v. Tekoh - Scotus