SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Cooked Crack

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yea, that breakup of judges is crazy.

[balki1867]

Ruh roh, Elena Kagan's gone full Clarence Thomas on us.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Ball Security]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Again, we need to have a throw-up emoji reaction.  Disgusting.

[Captain Wiggles]

Uh huh Secretive Christian sect? You mean a cult. 

 

Ida been shocked if ACB wasn't in a cult. 🤷

[Llevron]

40 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Uh huh Secretive Christian sect? You mean a cult. 

 

Ida been shocked if ACB wasn't in a cult. 🤷

Not that it’s needed, but the first few lines make it very clear it was a Christian sex cult. 
 

Which coincidentally is the only phrase that could get me in a church in 2022. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Good time to remember the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. Ones rights can be taken away at anytime for almost any reason. See the thirteenth amendment. 😉

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Really an awful, awful ruling. This is exactly the kind of thing that the colonists rebelled about. The Supreme Courts just gave the Redcoats the ability to enter, abuse their power, and act without limitations.

[The Evil Genius]

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[bearrock]

22 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

There is far more nuance to this case and the nearly unbroken line of recent decisions regarding Bivens actions dating back several decades (sue for constitutional violation by federal officers acting under the color of federal authority).  SCOTUS is saying that Congress is better suited to craft remedies for violation by federal officers (court also looks at whether there's an alternate remedy, such as an agency's complaint process as there was here.  SCOTUS' position is that whether such remedy is adequate is a legislative decision to be made by Congress).  

 

None of this changes how violations of the 4th amendment are handled in other contexts.  Unlawfully obtained evidence would be thrown out.  Habeas Corpus would be available.   Courts could still issue injunctions where appropriate.  Individuals just can't sue the individual officers for monetary damages (though they could potentially sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act under the right circumstances).  

[TheGreatBuzz]

Looks like a big case dump by scotus today but not the major stuff.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

[Llevron]

Every branch of our government is completely corrupt and the details are all out in the open. What happens if we DONT do anything about this? 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

I don’t understand. 
 

is this a case where funds were available to private schools - but withheld from some because they were religious private schools?

 

or is this just forcing a state to fund private schools when they weren’t before, and this particular case involved a religious private school?

[tshile]

Ok. I read the cnn article. 
 

i don’t have a problem with that as long as non-Christian schools are treated the same. 

[Ball Security]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ok. I read the cnn article. 
 

i don’t have a problem with that as long as non-Christian schools are treated the same. 

Why are any public funds used for private schools?  That’s poor use of tax payer money, imo, when public schools are underfunded.

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ok. I read the cnn article. 
 

i don’t have a problem with that as long as non-Christian schools are treated the same. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Why are any public funds used for private schools?  That’s poor use of tax payer money, imo, when public schools are underfunded.

 

I want to agree with both of these opinions. 

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Why are any public funds used for private schools?  That’s poor use of tax payer money, imo, when public schools are underfunded.

well that’s a different question. And im Not for/against either side on that. I know there are places like Connecticut that are using magnet charter schools with great success and there is a public funding element (as well as acceptable of certain areas to get them into better schools, not because of their parents money). And I’ve listened to enough stuff on NPR to know there’s some good private school stuff going on out there. 
 

but generally I am concerned about the siphoning of funds from public schools. I want huge investment in public schools. 
 

but… if you are going to provide funding to private schools, I’m ok with it going to the religious ones as well, as long as it’s not just going to the Christian ones. 
 

i don’t know that the government should be barred from something solely because religion is (in some way) an element. I think it should be barred from picking or favoring a specific religion. But as long as it’s treating  religions equally, that’s fine to me. 
 

For example I don’t mind religious setups during the holidays at a government building - as long as all religions are allowed and encouraged to participate. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by tshile

[Cooked Crack]

1 hour ago, Ball Security said:

Why are any public funds used for private schools?  That’s poor use of tax payer money, imo, when public schools are underfunded.

Quote

Under the program, jurisdictions in rural areas too sparsely populated to support secondary schools of their own can arrange to have nearby schools teach their school-age children, or the state will pay tuition to parents to send their kids to private schools. But those schools must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote a faith or belief system or teach “through the lens of this faith,” in the words of the state’s department of education.

I'd just paying private schools if I was Maine.