On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a potentially blockbuster religion clause case in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. However, there is a catch. While the lawyers representing St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School may need every vote they can get in this heavily contested area, they may have to prevail without Justice Amy Coney Barrett who recused herself for an unstated reason.
The case could bring clarity to an area long mired in 5-4 decisions. The question presented is “whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious.”
The basis for the recusal is a mystery. Barrett was on the faculty at Notre Dame University and has close ties to the institution. Notre Dame Law Professor Nicole Garnett has been involved in the case and the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic is on the brief for St. Isidore.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a Roman Catholic institution focused on digital learning.
The lower court ruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, prevailed in arguing that the charter school board violated state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. He insisted that the board should not have chartered the school because “St. Isidore’s educational philosophy is to establish and operate the school as a Catholic school.” He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning that the school intends to “serve the evangelizing mission of the church.”
The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades. Given her past interest and writing in the area, it would be ironic for Barrett to miss this ruling.
It is reminiscent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in the Harvard affirmative action case due to her close ties to that institution. However, for Jackson, it was immaterial since she was allowed to vote in the sister case involving the University of North Carolina.
The case will be argued in April.
Here is the lower court decision: St. Isidore Opinion
The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades.
That is not the wording of the First Amendment. That is the phrase used in a decision by FDR’s Democrat Justice (and Kluxxer racist) Hugo Black. Black had a deep hatred of Catholics – not to mention Jews and black Americans. He was a mirror of the prejudices of FDR who put him on SCOTUS to get his policies pushed through.
There’s a reason Democrats always want to argue the First amendment with their words “separation of church and state” – instead of on the actual words “Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof”
When you control the language and the words that are used, the battle to get what you want is already half won, as those opposing you have to fight your battle on ground of your choosing.
I wonder if Professor Turley knows that as he made the decision to use the Democrat version of this portion of the First Amendment?
The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-mythical-wall-separation-how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law
Old Airborne Dog
What’s the democrat version of that part of the First Amendment?
I think government has misunderstood the meaning of ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’
Also, misunderstood why Congress is banned from legislating this issue.
lgbmiel posted What’s the democrat version of that part of the First Amendment?
The version our host and Democrat lawyer and Constitutional scholar Professor Turley used in this article: “The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades.
The words ‘separation’ and ‘state’ do not appear in the religious freedom portions of the First Amendment.
Most adults even with a public school education provided by unionized government employees should not have a problem understanding the very plain language of the First Amendment, without somebody attempting to rewrite it for them.
lgbmiel, these are the exact same people who repeatedly publicly display that they have no idea what the words “shall not be infringed” mean in the Second Amendment. Or pretend they don’t – one of George’s “reading comprehension” issues.
Old Airborne Dog
Thank you for explaining. I wondered if that was it, but I wasn’t sure because that phrase isn’t even in there. How could it be the dem’s ‘version’ when that phrase is nowhere to be found in the Amendment?
I don’t understand why there is so much disagreement.
I started a new school in 2nd Grade. At that school, each morning we said The Lord’s Prayer, said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the sang O Beautiful for spacious skies.
IMHO, we should do that once again, and if some Atheists don’t like it, screw ’em. We were always a Christian country, and we were too weak to protect our own culture. As a result, look at us today. From the Message Bible:
Ignoring God Leads to a Downward Spiral
18-23 But God’s angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand.
24-25 So God said, in effect, “If that’s what you want, that’s what you get.” It wasn’t long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them—the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes!
26-27 Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.
28-32 Since they didn’t bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=MSG
Well then, let’s fund Episcopalians. It’s about public money. No one is stopping you from an education in morals. The problem is public schools have become immoral.
At Harvard the pupils preferred Homer Simpson to Shakespeare.
Another way to view it:
What if you were a devout Christian and had a child attending school in Alaska, Hawaii or Northern Arizona (school districts with large Native American populations that worshipped non-Christian religions).
Would you like it if the teacher (government official in public schools) imposed a non-Christian religious doctrine onto your child? Forcing them to worship something the parents didn’t believe in and your tax dollars helping to fund a non-Christian religion.
What if it’s two sects within Judeo-Christianity? Do Protestants want their kids indoctrinated into the Catholic interpretation or the Jewish interpretation? Or vice-versa?
The First Amendment solution that most Americans support is simply giving children a moment of silence – everyone is free to pray silently to their own god or religion or not at all. Teachers don’t indoctrinate kids. Everybody wins and it constitutional.
This case is about an application for a charter school. Nobody would be forced to attend that school, it would be the parents’ choice to enroll their kid there.
So, you would be perfectly fine paying taxes so the Satanic Temple can use public funds for a charter school? They are also a religion.
Uh, the Satanists already have schools, and they get public tax dollars. Duh! Here it is in Canada, and it happens here, too.
So, you would be perfectly fine paying taxes so the Satanic Temple can use public funds for a charter school? They are also a religion.
George, the Satanic Temple is a “church” of raging homosexuals, a sect of your Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism. It will be a very tiny church with one or two lonely students. Homosexuals have a 100% failure rate at procreation.
And I already pay taxes to have Satanic beliefs forced on children by dues paying government teachers who push satanic beliefs that men have a right to put their wedding tackle on display in little girls’ changerooms – as long as they claim tranny status.
But it looks like Trump has taken that away from you as well, George.
Old Airborne Dog
Today, in many public school systems, Leftism, a faith-based religion, is being taught, often under the guise of progressive values, shaping students’ perspectives on social, political, and cultural issues without room for alternative viewpoints.
I am Protestant, and I would have no problem sending my kid to a Catholic school. Or, to a Jewish school. It is the education that matters. The details of religion can be taught at home, according to the beliefs of the parents.
There is something in human beings that knows there is something going on in the Universe, that is way bigger than us, and beyond our comprehension. Look at the Woke – they reject Christianity, and despise it. Yet, they have formed their own religion. One based on faith, and one that doesn’t work.
This is why I think that our democracy will fail. We need a king, or a dictator, to reestablish the normative basis of society – that there is good and that there is evil. Ape shall not kill ape, as it were. But a moral code beyond human tampering. Because humans can justify anything.
Atheism rots your society. It sounds good in theory, but it leads a country to where we are today – baby killers, homosexuals, and a brutal sadistic bunch of fvcks. For every “good” atheist, you have a dozen narcissistic psychopaths running amok in your society. Here is a good short video of what atheism theoretically does – free us. The title of the video does not fit the video. But the truth is, what this guy preaches, – it don’t work that way:
“Another way to view it:
What if ”
Do away with state-run schools. Problem solved.
You hit it right on the head: “PUBLIC schools”. The case is not about public schools.
Another cowardly Democrat Anonymous tried this deflection: Would you like it if the teacher (government official in public schools) imposed a non-Christian religious doctrine onto your child? Forcing them to worship something the parents didn’t believe in
Non-Christian doctrine like Systemic White Racism, Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, Woke, Critical Black Racist Marxist Theory, and Tranny 101???
You claim that isn’t already happening with children “attending unionized public schools in Alaska, Hawaii or Northern Arizona (school districts with large Native American populations that worshipped non-Christian religions)”?
This is a CHARTER school – not a unionized PUBLIC school, where the union member teachers are government employees.
Old Airborne Dog
Last I heard, the Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. I thought that any religious organization can apply for funds to the state if the funding or process is open to all other schools or organizations. That is not establishing a religion. If anything it is clearly violating the free speech of Catholics, since, according to the Professor, building and creation is part of humanity and it’s ability to create is an integral part of free expression and speech.
I am not Catholic but have no problem whatsoever with the school applying for a charter. There have been more hairbrained and strange other schools chartered in states, including Oklahoma.
If we are going to prevent the Catholics from having a charter school then I would suggest that we also eliminate charter schools that hire NEA members since they tend to worship the god of progressivism and teach in a manner that is iniminical to good order of the state and the culture of the United States. Almost seditious in some places.
I mean if we are going after a catholic private school then let’s throw the rules open to every other school that MIGHT have a slight difference in how they teach. God forbid that we might let out the hell hounds of the devil.
I suppose that rules out Jewish Schools, Muslim Schools, Hindu Schools, Native American Schools and their various beliefs, and on and on.
I suspect the AG of OK has a problem with Catholics. Maybe we should send the Bawdy Bishop of Washington DC over to instruct him, although she is not catholic she can really spin a yarn.
Keep your powder dry , GEB.
I still don’t think public money can be used for evangelization. If a church operates a social welfare program, public money can go for the non religious aspects of that. I believe the same would go for educational programs. I think the school’s difficulty here will be the idea that it weaves religious doctrine into every aspect of its curriculum (assuming that’s true). That’s not bad in itself -just the opposite- but it creates an Establishment Clause problem.
oldmanfromkansas says: January 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM I still don’t think public money can be used for evangelization.
Evangalism for the theocracy of Marxism in public schools began with FDR enthusiastically adopting and promoting the writings of Melvil Dewey. It didn’t begin with Obama’s cultural Marxism of Woke and Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe or his economic Marxism of “the rich don’t pay their fair share”.
Dewey wrote that the function of the school system was to prepare children to be useful workers whose primary loyalty should be to their government. FDR was completely on board with that.
If that isn’t Marxism… change my mind.
Old Airborne Dog
It’s because people don’t understand that some of the states had established state religions. Some states fined people for not attending services. Some states levied taxes to support their church. Other states just required people to contribute to support the church and reverend.
This is what is meant by ‘an establishment of religion’ — one state sponsored religion, people were required to attend, and they were required to support the church.
Here Hamilton talks about an established religion and a tolerated religion:
“The characteristic difference between a tolerated and established religion, consists in this: With respect to the support of the former, the law is passive and improvident, leaving it to those who profess it, to make as much, or as little, provision as they … judge expedient; and to vary and alter that provision, as their circumstances may require. In this manner, the Presbyterians, and other sects, are tolerated in England. They are allowed to exercise their religion without molestation, and to maintain their clergy as they think proper. These are wholly dependent upon their congregations, and can exact no more than they stipulate and are satisfied to contribute. But with respect to the support of the latter, the law is active and provident. Certain precise dues, (tithes &c.,) are legally annexed to the clerical office, independent on the liberal contributions of the people …While tithes were the free … gift of the people … the Roman church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment.” Alexander Hamilton “Remarks on the Quebec Bill” 1775
“In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals…”
James Madison 1832 letter to Rev. Adams
I’ve learned so much from this website:
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/
Responding to GEB:
As I understand it, a non-profit organization can only get IRS tax exempt status if they don’t participate in lobbying or politics.
What many non-profit corporations do (to stay legal with the IRS laws) is create 2 separate corporations. So a church member donating tithes or citizen donating to a religious organization can’t deduct that donation with the IRS unless those dollars are never used for lobbying or politics.
So the non-profit essentially creates a second political corporation. You can donate to it but can’t deduct it with the IRS. Not sure if that second political corporation is required to pay taxes.
As far a constitutional law, “Marbury v. Madison” requires all laws passed by Congress to circumscribe the U.S. Constitution (including the First Amendment). This is called “Judicial Review” – the top duty of every judge in every court.
Shortly after “Marbury v. Madison” (1803) created Judicial Review authority in the United States (based on centuries of Old English common law) came “Fletcher v. Peck”.
“Fletcher v. Peck” enacted in 1810, created Judicial Review on the state level. Since 1810, states were also required to follow the U.S. Constitution – including the First Amendment!
This is nonsense. Charitable nonprofits can support ballot measures, but not candidates. They can even pay to craft ballot measures to fund themselves.
Shortly after “Marbury v. Madison” (1803) created Judicial Review authority in the United States (based on centuries of Old English common law) came “Fletcher v. Peck”.
No part of government can ‘create’ a new power or authority for itself or another part of government.
All authority comes from the Constitution. The Constitution delegates no power of judicial review.
Jefferson rejected this.
If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825
The Tenth Amendment rejects this.
Given her past interest and writing in the area, it would be ironic for Barrett to miss this ruling.
It isn’t that hard to figure out if you ask yourself if Barrett has been on a course of remaking herself of late, beginning with writing the majority decision where she and Chief Justice Roberts sided with the three Marxist activist judges to permit government to do censorship by proxy.
Her vote in the Dobbs decision – which wasn’t necessary to overturn the previous emanations-and-penumbras decision – was quite possibly the high point of her textualist/originalist rulings that we will see.
Old Airborne Dog
Airblown Puppy, tell us how you won the war.
Pedophile Cut Like A Marshmallow Democrat Gun Bunny on probation: tell everybody how as an Airsoft Commandos door gunner on a nuclear submarine, you won Mom’s Backyard Airsoft Wars.
And if your probation officer will throw your ass in jail for violating the terms of your probation by using the internet if you ever start posting with a unique user name.
Old Airborne Dog
“no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
The wording of the Constitution doesn’t remove religion, which is evidenced by the fact that after the Constitution was ratified, many states had a state religion funded by the public.
It is indeed unfortunate that Justice Barrett did not state a reason. Given her Notre Dame connections, its involvement in the case, and the rececent discussions of Supreme Court ethics, perhaps she did it “to avoid the appearance of impropriety”: if she voted against the school’s position, it might be interpreted as not an honest vote, i.e., she did it to avoid claims that, as a Catholic plus the ND connection, she voted to make a statement that she will not improperly favor Catholic schools. But, if she voted in favor, she would face criticism of being a “Papal puppet” or “Vatican stooge,” to paraphrase the Putin Puppet and Kremlin Stooge epithets against those who criticize US Ukraine policy or argue for trying to improve relations with the Russian Federation. The country’s polarization causes too many no-win situations, with immediate, reflexive (read “knee-jerk”) assessments.
Another thought occurs to me – many public schools are also RELIGIOUS schools. They teach the religion of Woke.
Floyd, take a look at how FDR enthusiastically adopted and put in place the writings of Melville Dewey on what Dewey claimed the role of public school teachers was and what they should be preparing children to be.
If that isn’t promotion of Marxist statism and an attack on the pillars that support our republic… change my mind.
Old Airborne Dog.
The bigger question is can Congress pass a law that violates the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment? Can Congress appropriate taxpayer dollars for programs that violate the First Amendment?
A “Constitution 101” class would say “No”! Congress does not have that authority under the U.S. Constitution.
In real practice, that means the IRS (empowered by Congress) should treat all religious institutions as for-profit corporations or non-profit corporations (like all non-profits).
If a private school is teaching a particular religious interpretation they should not receive any federal tax dollars (IRS tax exemption, federal grants, etc).
Religious institutions start paying their own way without taxpayer subsidies!
If a private school is teaching a particular religious interpretation they should not receive any federal tax dollars (IRS tax exemption, federal grants, etc).
And yet – the governments’ unionized employees who provide hundreds of millions in kickback political donations, the teachers in public schools that are the mandatory alternative to charter schools, get public funding to indoctrinate. Indoctrination through teaching the Rock Fairy Religion of Atheism’s Marxist theology: Herbert Marcus’s Critical Black Racist Theory, Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, Woke, Systemic White Racism, etc.
As always, it’s always Democrat Double Standards Different that they want applied.
Old Airborne Dog
USA Today published that “throughout the 12 studies done in the last 15 years, 11 showed that students who attend private and faith-based schools had higher reading and math scores and high graduation rates and college attendance.” The private school environment is generally a smaller environment giving the teachers more time to focus on each student individually and work with each student in what he or she is struggling with.
The Cato Institute did a research that found what the top five reasons why parents choose private education over public include:
Better student discipline (50.9%)
Better learning environment (50.8%)
Smaller class sizes (48.9%)
Improved student safety (46.8%)
More individual attention for the child (39.3%)
https://heritage-schools.org/life/story/2024-12-18/christian-private-education-vs-public-education/#:~:text=The%20data%20showed%20that%20students,a%20study%20on%20student%20behavior.
Parent involvement is the case. People do not value what is free psych studies show.
Well said and I support. Although not catholic my children went to catholic school for part of their education and i had no problem with their courses or teaching.
Floyd, I think this is right up your alley.
Number 6 gets it right….as does Paul V…..as the freedom from religion concept is bogus.
All that should be prohibited is the government following in the wake of the British and having something akin to the Church of England…..that being one established by the government and granted special treatment by the government.
So happy the founders were smarter than you.
Tell these idiots arguing pardon power that; they think the Founders and Framers were intellectually inferior and did not know how to communicate and write law.
Art 2, 2
“The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The president has the absolute unrestricted power to grant any and all pardons with two qualifications: Offenses must be against the U.S., offenses may not regard impeachment.
The Article does not prohibit preemptive pardons which they just cannot assimilate.
A preemptive pardon does not pardon an “offense”. It attempts to pardon unspecified /theoretical offenses or potential offenses or conduct that might or might not be offenses. That is a grant of immunity and the Constitution does not allow the president to grant immunity to anyone or everyone.
Of course it does.
All the clemency powers are legal/justice system acts that address prior legal/justice system acts — part of due process.
Innocent until proven guilty. One first has to be convicted of an offense before a president can forgive that offense. A president cannot forgive NOTHING. A pardon restores — there can not be any restoration unless something was first taken away.
You haven’t supported any of your unreasonable and illogical claims. You just keep repeating the text. That’s not support or proof of what you claim.
She most likely recused herself because she doesn’t want to rule against the church. She’s bound by her oath to defer to the Constitution on her opinions, not her religious beliefs. It may be she cannot participate in the case because it would conflict with her desire to side with the church. Essentially she chose to refuse to do her job because she may have to rule against the church.
She most likely recused herself because she doesn’t want to rule against the church.
Comey-Barrett recused herself because she was fearful that George and his fellow violent fascist Democrat friend would once again be raging just a few feet from her front door, threatening her as George and the rest of them did after the Dobbs decision was “leaked”
* an establishment … churches are establishments of religion , libraries are establishments of reading, hospitals are establishments etc. I’ve always disagreed with the word usage.
It’s a loser case . Everyone can attend an establishment of their religion on any day of the week. For Christians, churches are schools and churches teach moral laws, ethics and virtues. Feel absolutely free in using these schools free of charge weekly and it’s recommended.
Taxes cannot be used for churches or any other religious teachings. You’ll get a war if you do.
Can pupils be given vouchers to use at any school is a different question. It’s an interesting question because the reality of the price of education would suddenly impact. 20 thousand per pupil per year for 5 children v. 20 thousand for one pupil. Add 100 thousand to your bank account literally v. 20 thousand.
No, religious schools cannot be publicly funded. It would be an establishment of religions plural or singular makes no difference.
Educate your children freely every Sunday or Saturday evening. Granny goes to church on Saturday eve and cooks the noon meal after church on Sundays for the family.
Best wishes
The Framers put the Establishment clause in the Constitution so that the United States did not establish a State Church, such as some German princes installing Lutheranism as the state religion in their domains and others siding with the Catholic Church following the Peace of Augsburg in the 16th century. Decades earlier, Henry VIII established the “state Church” known as the Anglican Church. Allowing taxpayers to choose with vouchers where their children are educated is religion-neutral. This only came about because public schools and their teachers’ far Left union leaders ruined public education in much of the country, particularly impacting the poorest communities the most.
What ya got in the basket Lil red riding HOOD
* That’s establishing another big ol’ cash cow feeding at the public trough. Come get some Tammy Faye and Jim Baker, pope, ayotollah, Jimmy swaggart, reverend al Sharpton, rev sun Yong moon, wahe guru and hare Krishna AND BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY little red riding hood…
You must be 🤪
* multiply those 5 children by 13 years K-12. Them be some big teats on that big ol’ cash cow.
Smh
States wanted the BoR to prevent Congress from misconstructing or abusing its powers. Religion was a big issue because several states already had their own state religions. Many states included religious tests in their constitutions. States didn’t want the federal government trying to interfere in their powers — what they had already established.
Another Anonymous Coward tried this “don’t believe your lying eyes” moment: Taxes cannot be used for churches or any other religious teachings. You’ll get a war if you do.
The government employees that are the unionized public school teachers – invaluable for their hundreds of millions in political kickbacks and votes – have been teaching Marxist theology since FDR enthusiastically embraced the Melville Dewey’s Marxist goals for public education.
And Anonymous – you didn’t get a war.
You got Democrats thrown out of the Oval Office and Senate just over a month ago when that Marxist indoctrination was rejected by many Democrats, as well as Republicans.
Old Airborne Dog
Hitler Goes to California! Gets applause and cheers from alles der Volk!
Fired Newsom yet? Released the water yet?
Danke schorn, Floyd.
What an inspiring roundtable. An American president actually sitting down with citizens to discuss their disaster situations and politely allowing them time to speak their minds. In a few days President Trump has done more listening to Americans, answering (hostile) media questions and providing guidance on his thoughts than his predecessor did in four years. Congratulations, Mr President. Keep up the good work.
No one should joke about WWII but I do it , too. Watched a program last night and the German army was a machine. It was the holocaust when ashes rained.
Thank you humbly, God, for your help.
A good guess is that three of the justices, Deino (Δεινώ), Enyo (Ἐνυώ), and Pemphredo (Πεμφρηδώ), leaned on Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself.
Is Justice Barrett’s opinion that only atheist justices should participate in the interpretation of the Constitution in this case?
Justice Thomas is a practicing Catholic.
I presume the ruling will extend to Muslim schools.
To be fair “elective birth control abortion up to the moment of birth” Biden and Pelosi claim to be devout Catholics as well.
Other “practicing Catholics” were eager in their attempts to apply a religious test to Comey-Barrett during her confirmation hearings.
Is it liberal readers’ opinions? I think we worry too much about “appearance” of conflict. We know, as soon as a question is posed, how the liberal group will vote. The conservatives – you can look this up – are much more prone to wander from the conservative herd.
(OT)
The benefits of Trump’s election keep on coming.
Rubio’s State Department temporarily (for now) halted almost all foreign aid programs, i.e., foreign welfare programs.
Who benefits? The middle class. It is their wages that are taxed and redistributed to those foreign moochers.
Want to increase *real* wages, cut government spending, and reduce the deficit? That’s how you do it.
They didn’t halt Israel’s foreign aid. They were specifically exempted.
Thus my words “almost all.”
Problems with reading comprehension?
Sam,
Some people are just too slow and dumb to understand.
Egypt too.
Fantastic!!
President Trump is truly ‘preserving, protecting, and defending’ the Constitution and ‘taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.’
Including protecting our borders, which have been open to all comers for four years.
Yes!!
I have long thought that our military should be used to defend our borders — instead of illegally using our people to defend other countries. Common defense of the states. The militia is to be used to execute the laws of the Country, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. The government is supposed to protect each state against invasion.
It will be nice when the federal government does what the Constitution directs it to do.
Why does trump use a pose like Hitler or other Dictators in his official photo? Is he trying to tell us something?
Keep going this direction. It helps make clear just how unhinged the anti-Trump resistance is.
“Why does trump use a pose like Hitler . . .”
In psychology, that’s called “associative looseness” (aka “derailment”). It’s a thought disorder.
Seek help.
It’s only because you think he is focused on you. Probably not but you never know.
Why did Biden pose as a cadaver and Harris pose as a Valley Girl?
Well done!!
Why are leftists such losers?
Why does trump use a pose like Hitler or other Dictators in his official photo? Is he trying to tell us something?
Whining cowardly Anonymous Democrat are enraged at Trump purposefully reminding them with that photo of his mug shot that they celebrated when they believed that would give The Big Guy re-election.
And so… back to “Trump is Hitler!”….
Remember when you LIKED that pose, you feckless Democrat Anonymous coward?
Old Airborne Dog
Probably trying to match Musk”s “sieg heil” (guffaw). (It’s hard to keep up with anti-Trumpers’ bizarre imaginations. )
John Roberts has been a disappointment in several areas, but on the Religion clauses of 1A he has been pretty solid. So there could be five votes in favor of the Catholic school. We know the three liberals will vote against, so the school will need all five remaining votes.
” . . . Justice Amy Coney Barrett who recused herself . . .”
She has more integrity than does judge Merchan.
So, is this arguing “freedom of religion” vs “freedom from religion”? If you are in the freedom of religion camp, then finding should not be a problem as long as similar Jewish, Muslim or other religion based learning institutions are treated equally. However if you are of the freedom from religion, then you would of course argue against funding, no matter the religion. So, does this case now devolve to actually deciding which it is, “freedom of” or “freedom from”?
Religion is free. Free means at no cost at the public welfare trough. Put free back in FREEdom. Please attend to your education in morals, ethics, and virtues freely.
I think that when a judge, particularly a SCOTUS justice, recuses him or herself from a case, the presumption should be that it is to uphold the integrity of the Court, and assiduously avoid even the merest appearance of impropriety. I would be much more concerned about a judge failing to recuse when there was a risk of prejudice, real or perceived.