St. Isidore of Seville may have overcome every obstacle in bringing knowledge and education to the world, but he could not overcome a tie on the Supreme Court. With the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma City lost by default when the Court deadlocked on its constitutional challenge to being denied a charter in favor of secular schools. Tied 4-4, the result is that the lower court ruling stands against the school.
Everything about the decision is frustrating for those looking for greater clarity in this area. Not only did the Court deadlock, but it also issued only a one-sentence ruling upholding the lower court’s decision, saying only: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
Brevity may be “the soul of wit” to Shakespeare, but it is the bane of constitutional scholars who want to understand where the line is drawn in such cases.
It is not even confirmed which justice joined the liberal justices in producing the deadlock. With Barrett out, a conservative still had to join Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson to produce this result.
We still do not know why Barrett recused herself. Frankly, the public should be informed when a justice leaves the highest court with an even number of members with the danger of such a deadlock. I understand that some information might be withheld for the privacy of justices, but some general explanation would seem in order on the nature of the reason.
My assumption is that it was either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh who supplied the fourth vote with a slight edge to Roberts. However, we are not informed of the identities any more than the rationales of the justices.
No one should be satisfied with any of this. Barrett’s reason should be a matter of public record as should be the identity of the justices voting on both sides. Then, there is the little matter of a lack of an actual opinion to go with the announced result. Instead, the public is given an order shorter than a notice from the DMV that a license renewal is due.
The order is even too short for a Haiku by two syllables and two lines.
Religious schools have no business getting government funds unless every single practicing religion gets equal funding, that includes the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Church of Satan.
Turley continues to display a very curious idea of which SCOTUS aberrations deserve public scrutiny, and which can be allowed to lurk in the shadows. My previous candidate for exposure was:
================================
SCOTUS won’t take up copyright case against Ta-Nehisi Coates after five justices recuse themselves
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-wont-take-copyright-case-against-ta-nehisi-coates-after-five-justices
Which will not be heard (and one party will potentially be denied justice) because too many SCOTUS justices have potential conflicts that result from business relationships to the other party. Turley claims to be very concerned with public trust in our justice system. Does anyone doubt that circumstances such as this undermine that trust? Yes, recusal is supposed to support trust, but can that be true when so many conflicts exist that a case cannot even be heard? I think not.
================================
I have an even better candidate today:
================================
Supreme Court Signals Support For Fed Independence Amid Trump-Era Firing Challenge
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-signals-support-fed-independence-amid-trump-era-firing-challenge
“In a brief, unsigned order, the Court allowed the Trump administration’s removal of two officials – from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board – to stand while litigation proceeds. BUT IT POINTEDLY REJECTED THE PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION THAT THE OUTCOME OF THEIR CASE WOULD IMPLICATE THE FEDERAL RESERVE OR ITS TOP OFFICIALS.
‘The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,’ the Court wrote, seeking to draw a clear line between the central bank and other government agencies targeted in the litigation.”
That order may be unsigned, but it doesn’t really need a signature; it is a steaming, stinking pile of equine excrement that has Roberts’ feces-laden fingerprints all over it. Someone needs to point me to the part of the Constitution that allows for any “quasi-private entity” that can exercise incontestable power over mandatory nationwide regulation without any Constitutionally delineated checks or balances over that power. I have been hopeful, and at times optimistic, that the Supreme Court might come to its senses and recognize the source of and limits to its authority in time to salvage our tripartite system of strictly delineated powers, checks and balances, but conduct such as this makes me despair that such a thing is even possible. I’m beginning to be resigned to the idea that the US concept of a Republic has permanently been vanquished, and to wonder what those who still believe in such an ideal should be advocating now.
Barrett will someday be known and ‘The Great Recuser”.
She is so afraid of being labeled partisan because of the stink that the extremely partisan Democrats put up when she was nominated and confirmed. I agree with pioneering4ce7ede134, Barrett is a coward.
Turley: aren’t you assuming that Justice Barrett would have sided with the religious school if she hadn’t recused? She may not have.
Aboslute power tends to corrupt absolutely. They don’t have to tell us anything, apparently.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” ~ Lord Acton
Women, too.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely – Lord Acton (one of the best historians of Western civilization).
Unless we start disbarring and even jailing crooked judges, they are given absolute power. I would argue low lever crook like Dugan in Wisconsin should not be allowed absolute power.
Barrett is a coward. Simple.