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.
PRIVATIZATION
K-12 may only be provided by the free enterprise, free market, private sector education industry.
Education and its regulation are not mandated or allowed by the Constitution.
Education is not and may not be taxed for or funded as debt, defense, or “general Welfare,” per Article 1, Section 8, understanding that only 16% of the population attends K-12.
No state or local government may constrain or deny the free market, free enterprise, private property education industry, or act to diminish its viability.
No state or local government may participate in or regulate the constitutional free market, free enterprise, private property education industry.
Education is not a governmental emergency service such as police and fire.
Harvard, Stanford et al. are examples of participation in the free market, free enterprise, private property, education industry.
So-called “labor” unions are illegal and unconstitutional criminal organizations that are prohibited from entering into legal contracts; unions engage in breach of contract, refuse to provide labor, fail to appear for assignments, engage in criminal trespass, harass and intimidate individuals, cause public disturbance, commit vandalism, cause property damage, etc.
Trumps error.
For the sake of brevity: Justice Amy Coney Barrett is an intellectual coward and not up to the job.
I hate to, but I agree.
Actual Americans are not allowed to have a country.
Just imagine, the American Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic, not a one man, one vote democrazy.
Do you wonder why and how the Constitution was nullified and voided, and America was “fundamentally transformed” into a third world s—hole country?
The Founders restricted the vote, by state legislature, to citizens who were male, European, 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
Start there.
This is the likely reason Barrett recused herself,
“Justice Barrett has a close personal relationship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a law professor at Notre Dame, who is also a leading advocate for public funding of religious schools. Barrett is the godmother to one of Garnett’s children. The two were also Supreme Court clerks together in the late 1990s, and they have been neighbors and colleagues at Notre Dame for many years. Their families are close, and their lives are described as “completely intertwined””
NIcole Garnett was once a legal advisor to the school in the case. While she was not associated with the school’s argument the close friendship and the fact that they clerked together is enough raise suspicion of bias. Barrett made the right choice it seems.
Yup, she made the right choice. Unlike the left-wing Justices, she operates by sound ethical principles. The left-wing justices, by contrast, go into one side’s camp and say “you’ve got to keep up the fight,” then they don the black robe and sit in judgment when those very cases reach the court. Prof. Turley had an article about that just this week.
The left-wing justices didn’t need to recuse. Only Barrett did because of her close association with her friend who was a legal advisor to the school.
” left-wing Justices” should wear scarlet robes. They adulterate the law.
If that is the reason, she was wrong to recuse. Friendship with a former legal advisor to the school is not a conflict. She disregarded her responsibility to decide cases and thereby likely affected the result.
Turley is frustrated because the court didn’t provide him with any material to criticize leftists and liberals who oppose religion. Instead, he could have focused on the case’s merits, such as why Oklahoma’s laws prohibit using state funds to finance a religious school. He could have emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state. However, Turley hasn’t made his stance on this issue clear, and I suspect he opposes the separation between church and state. This likely contributes to his frustration at not having anything from the Supreme Court to use against the left or the “anti-religious.”
This is discrimination against religion. It makes no sense .the court has already ruled in the past that states cannot withhold funding for organizations of like purpose just because they are religious, or have a religious component to their education. The best thing would be to allow all of us to keep our tax dollars that we have to spend on schools and choose the school We want our kids to attend
That’s not correct. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot stop giving money for non-religious purposes to religious schools.
However, funding that goes directly towards teaching religious beliefs or supporting churches in that way is still not allowed by the Constitution.
Your summary is simplistic and incorrect. Vouchers can be used at religious school for teaching religious beliefs.
Another example: if states provide sign-language interpreters for deaf students, they must do so even when those interpreters are used for religious and theological education.
This is what happens when George gets his information from the Internet. Tell him to look at the Zelman and Carson cases. What I resent about George is that he and Gigi spout their own versions of the law as authoritative, and for law students like me who read it, we could accidentally believe it.
You completely misunderstand Carson.
From Carson: “Maine may provide a strictly secular education in its public schools. But BCS and Temple Academy—like numerous other recipients of Maine tuition assistance payments—are not public schools”
Charter schools are, by definition, PUBLIC schools. Carson does not apply, and in fact, supports prohibiting state establishment of public religious schools.
I support charter schools and have represented many as their counsel. Charter schools are PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They are instrumentalities of the state. It is so obviously wrong that an instrumentality of the state would be Catholic. The fact that 4 justices thought this was ok is appalling.
Actually, it is YOU who needs to go read Zelman and Carson, as you glossed over the important holdings to find a sentence that fits your argument. I’ll await your response after doing so. I can see how the Court was divided but for you to dismiss the reasoning of 4 justices–SUPERIOR to you—without even knowing why, is pompous, frivolous, and frankly, wrong.
Actually, it is YOU who needs to go read Zelman and Carson, as you glossed over the important holdings to find a sentence that fits your argument.
As a reminder, SCOTUS’ ruling in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) used one sentence thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. as a guiding principle for interpreting the Establishment Clause.
What holding are you referring to?
The Carson case criticizes the First Circuit for comparing Maine’s program to creating de facto public schools in areas where there are none available. It rejects that interpretation by emphasizing that the funds were for use at private schools, which, in the Court’s opinion, could not exempt religious private schools.
Zelman also clearly emphasizes that distinction between providing public funds to individuals, who may choose to use that aid for private religious education and providing public schools which are religious, as that is state establishment. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the “Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice.”
you glossed over the analysis of “public purpose” vs. private aid or entanglement
you forget that the prospective students who would have attended “St. Isidore” are still eligible for state assistance in “public schools.” IN other words, the government will be paying for them no matter which school they attend because education is a “public purpose,” not a religious purpose.
As a person without children but religious ill need a refund of my property taxes because it’s against my religious beliefs to teach atheism and immorality, lies and death. I’ll take that in one lump sum in a Roth IRA yearly.
A charter school is a public school. This isn’t private aid. This is public. Not sure whats so hard to get there.
see Espinoza.
We are not talking about vouchers. Vouchers are money from parents not the state. We are talking about the state directly funding a Catholic charter school. That is not allowed under the Oklahoma State Constitution.
“Another example: if states provide sign-language interpreters for deaf students, they must do so even when those interpreters are used for religious and theological education.”
Not at private religious schools. Parents pay for that interpreter.
I’m sure you’ll be refunded a check for $0.00 . Spend it wisely.
So, you’re ok with government funds going to a religious organization that promotes the worship of of satan?
Are they providing an education curriculum consistent with public schools? Other than your Alma Mater, can you name a private, satanic school?
I can’t see what the basis is for your suspicions. He is a Democrat who testified he voted for Biden in 2020 (hard to believe he would have in 2024). In my view he bends over backwards for the left to not label them fascists. But he sometimes criticizes the right too. He criticizes the left more these days bc they are deserving of it. There are few commentators who are as objective as he is. I’m sure he has the same trouble most people do interpreting the first amendment considering the tension created by the two religion clauses.
We want to know WHY state funds are prohibited. As you know, there’s no Constitutional separation between church and state. The state may not name an official religion but it also cannot prevent the free exercise thereof.
“As you know, there’s no Constitutional separation between church and state. The state may not name an official religion but it also cannot prevent the free exercise thereof.”
You just proved yourself wrong.
The state cannot hold one religion above all others. If the state does choose to support religion it must support all of them equally. Meaning Christianity must be held equal to Islam or Judaism, of even the Satanic Temple. Christians obviously would object to being considered equal. They don’t want to be equal. They want to be the considered more important than all the others. The Constitution prohibits government from doing that.
Christians obviously would object to being considered equal. They don’t want to be equal. They want to be the considered more important than all the others.
You were doing fine right up to this comment. There’s nothing “obvious” about it. Meaning Christianity must be held equal to Islam or Judaism, of even the Satanic Temple. Held is the operative word there. The state must hold all equally…period. If Christians, Muslims, Satanists, or Atheists believe they are more equal than others, then that’s the right of their conscience and the state shall not deny their equal protection of those beliefs. But the state does not hold all equally. The state explicitly denies the equal protection of the freedom of conscience of all, with one exception. And by their actions, the state is holding non-religious institutions as more equal, more important than all others.
“And by their actions, the state is holding non-religious institutions as more equal, more important than all others.”
Wrong, the state is being neutral when they don’t treat any religion as more important than all the others.
Secularism is not a religion. If the state wants to fund one religious school it must find all of them equally. It must treat Christians as equal to Satanists. Clearly Christians won’t tolerate being seen as equal to Satanists. So the solution is not to treat any of them or fund any of them as equals.
Wrong, the state is being neutral when they don’t treat any religion as more important than all the others.
While they may treat all religions neutrally, they are treating secular beliefs as more equal than religious beliefs. All beliefs that do no harm to the rights of other beliefs require equal protection under the law. It matters not that Christians, or Jews or Hindus or Atheists, or Muslims, or Pagans or Satanists or Secularists believe their way is the only way. That’s their right of conscience. The government shall not establish an official religion, nor shall it unduly prefer religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
“While they may treat all religions neutrally, they are treating secular beliefs as more equal than religious beliefs.”
No, secular beliefs are not more equal than religious beliefs. Secular beliefs are neutral. It doesn’t place one religion above all others. Secularism is not a religion. Its equal treatment of all and that is to be neutral. Religious zealots don’t want to be relegated to just being equal. They want to be viewed as above everyone else with their moral superiority complex.
You continue to allow “your” assumed superior opinion against religion to cloud your objectivity. Clearly you don’t accept that those that hold a belief in a religion and those that don’t are two sides of the same coin. Both are beliefs and both are supposed to receive equal protection under our constitution. Neither belief is superior when it comes to constitutional protections. That was the point Jefferson was making. The government was not to establish an acceptable belief system. But here we are. The government has erected a wall of separation between a religious belief system and the government, leaving Secularism as the only belief system receiving taxpayer funding.
It’s as if in the universe of belief systems, the observable beliefs are the stars and galaxies. Secularism is the dark matter of our existence.
Olly, George’s true religion is Leftism — a faith built on blind belief, where lying is virtue and obedience is salvation. The Grand Leftist tells George what to say and what to think because George traded his mind for membership.
There is definitely moral superiority. Morality in Christianity if read correctly is simply logical. Are you trying to say that everyone should be a thief? It’s a universal? By George there are such cultures.
Nun uhjh
Post offices don’t have a single religious mailbox. I want one.
I don’t have children. I just want my money back. I need it.
That’s another equal protection issue. I can accept a cost for public education as civic duty. That cost should be a flat tax rate. Those that actually receive direct education services should pay an additional tax per student. That’s what happens in private education.
This is not how the equal protection clause works. You cant opt out of police services and request a refund on your taxes.
This is all centered on the notion that the government should not be involved in matters related to the freedom of conscience. What the courts have interpreted Jefferson’s wall separating Church and State to mean however is that public funds shall be available only to non-religious activities. That of course means that the government is involved in matters related to freedom of conscience and they’ve chosen to infringe the 1st amendment rights of those wanting their public funds to be available for a religion-based education, while making those public funds available to all others. This certainly seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. To truly provide equal protection, either the government makes public funds available to all schools, or they don’t fund any schools.
It’s about the government not supporting one religion over others. If the Supreme Court sided with the school it would have meant that every religious school, even the Satanic Temple would be entitled to public funds.
The separation of Church and state idea is meant to prevent the kind of government sanctioned religious preference that allowed the Church in england to rule over people’s lives and dictate morals to everyone. Obvioiusly religious freedom in America really means Christian dominance over all other religions and only the Christian view is the correct one.
The government is not supposed to elevate any one religion over all others. The founders knew they didn’t want what was common in Europe and England at the time.
The government is not supposed to elevate any one religion over all others.
Freedom of conscience includes the right to believe in religion or not believe in religion. More broadly, freedom of conscience is the right to hold your own thoughts, beliefs, and moral convictions without interference from the government. This includes:
– The right to believe in any religion.
– The right to not believe in any religion (atheism, agnosticism, etc.).
– The right to change your beliefs.
– The right to act according to your conscience, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others or violate public safety.
By making public funds available only to non-religious believers, they have elevated the freedom of conscience of non-believers over religious believers. This effectively puts the government in the position of actively endorsing a state of non-religious freedom and not your clumsy attempt to define religious freedom as Christian dominance. This clearly violates the equal protection clause. The point is if the government is taking taxpayer funds and using that to pay for education. Those funds should be available without discrimination to all citizens. The only other option is to not take those funds and taxpayers choose to spend their own money on the education they want for their children.
This is not that difficult to comprehend.
It’s not freedom of consciousness. Its government promotion of religion. The Constitution expressly prohibits the government from promoting religion, one religion, over others. It also prohibits government infringement of the exercise of religion, as in people exercising their religious beliefs without interference. The idea is that the government is neutral when it comes to religion. Christians want the government to promote their views as the official views of the country. The Constitution does not allow that unless it treats all religions as official views of the country.
Its government promotion of religion. The Constitution expressly prohibits the government from promoting religion, one religion, over others.
Wrong. If the state used public funds for religious schools, but denied those funds for non-religious schools, that would be a violation of both the 1st and 14th amendment. That being true, if the state used public funds for non-religious schools, but denied them for religious schools that would be equally unconstitutional. The effect is the government is promoting one belief system over another and violating the natural right of conscience that is supposed to be protected equally under our constitution.
Non-religious is not a belief system….
According to Tomas de Torquemada, you can’t talk him out of anything in the holy office of the inquisition.
Why? I am supremely and decidedly not religious, even ‘anti-church’, but *separation of church and state*. That is crystal clear. Really, our modern left need to be thrown into the fires they now throw everyone else into. This is absurd. SCOTUS seems to be asleep. For the life of me, I will never understand why so many on the left, barring insanity, have such a problem with other free people thinking differently than they do. This is not sanity, and sure isn’t Constitutional. For Pete’s sake. I am holding out every hope that this animosity from the left is a regime in its very death throes; free society cannot coexist with their very ironically puritanical fascism.
Just about time for the President, the Congress and the People to tell these arrogant courts to stay in their lane:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/breaking-biden-judge-blocks-trump-dismantling-department-education
https://americanmind.org/salvo/supreme-confusion
This column by Turley is the most astoundingly and profoundly stupid piece of garbage I have ever had the misfortune to read.
Turley claims that this result is “frustrating for those looking for greater clarity in this area”, and “is the bane of constitutional scholars who want to know where the line is drawn in these cases”.
Really ?????
REALLY ????
The line was drawn 234 years ago by the Founding Fathers with great CLARITY in the First Amendment.
The only “FRUSTRATING” thing about this case is that all 6 of the conservative justices failed to recuse.
All 6 of them are devout, practicing Catholics. They were installed through the advice of Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. This man is a Catholic, and a fanatical religious zealot who goes to Mass and takes communion EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK.
The idea that 6 catholic zealots should be allowed to rule on a case involving a catholic school is a gross affront to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and all they stood for.
It is clear that Barrett actually realized this and had the good sense to recuse.
The others, not so much
The Founding Fathers were very clear about keeping religion out of government.
It is worth pointing out that most of them were not Christians. They were products of the Enlightenment, and as such were theistic rationalists. They believed in a Creator, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or any other prophet. Jefferson was particularly adamant about the falsity of claims regarding the divinity of Christ. He took a razor and went through his personal bible and excised all references to the divinity of Christ as the son of god.
Obviously there cannot be a religious public school, but under Scotus precedent state-issued vouchers can be used to pay tuition at religious private schools. This case had to do with whether the charter school in question is a private school (in which case the Oklahoma Supreme Court was wrong) or a public school.
It’s a close question.
Charter schools are tuition-free schools funded through taxpayer dollars but run independently of local school boards. They have more flexibility in how they operate than traditional schools.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/29/supreme-court-religious-charter-schools-oklahoma/83351200007/
You must have searched high and low for that nonsense response.
And of all places usatoday. That’s some pretty highbrow reading you got there.
Can you identify any statement I made that was incorrect? I doubt it, but I’ll wait.
Not the same anonymous, but this case was not about whether a charter school is a public school. It IS a public school by definition. It is an instrumentality of the state.
If you think, “Obviously there cannot be a religious public school,” then you must side against the creation of a Catholic charter school.
“This case had to do with whether the charter school in question is a private school (in which case the Oklahoma Supreme Court was wrong) or a public school.”
No, this case had to do with state funds being used on a private religious school. Not vouchers or ESA’s. This was a case where Oklahoma’s legislature wanted to use state money to support a religious charter school, a virtual one. That is not allowed under Oklahoma’s Constitution. Even the state’s staunch Republican AG opposed it because it violated state law and the Constitution.
Parents can still use vouchers or ESA’s to attend the Catholic school, but the state cannot spend taxpayer money directly on the Catholic charter school were they explicitly pointed out that they will be adhering to Catholic doctrine.
If the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision was based on state law, including the state constitution, Scotus would not have taken the case. They only decide cases where an issue of federal law can change the outcome. As for your claim that this did not involve vouchers: that’s exactly what I said. Vouchers are for use at a private school. Here we have an independent charter school, and the issue is whether it’s private or public. Finally, if you know anything about the Supreme Court, you know it doesn’t take cases where independent and adequate state law grounds for the decision exist, so there must have been an issue of federal law that could change the outcome. See Michigan v. Long (1983) (State court decisions that appear to be determined on largely federal grounds and lack a separate, adequate state ground for resolution may be reviewed by the Supreme Court because it appears that the state court based its reasoning on federal law. If the state court states in its decision that it resolved the case on separate state grounds, however, the decision is not subject to review by the Supreme Court).
It is NOT a private school. Charters are PUBLIC schools. They are instrumentalities of the state. These are not unresolved questions.
Wrong. Just because its got the word “charter” in it doesn’t make it public school. Its a catholic school where they will be teaching religious doctrine and engage in catholic traditions and beliefs. Oklahoma’s Constitution does not allow public funds to go towards religious instruction and indoctrination. Even the state’s Republican AG knew the funding was unconstitutional in Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court based its ruling on the State Constitution. Not federal law. SCOTUS got involved because religious zealots in OK wanted the Supreme Court to overrule the conservative OK supreme court.
Even the lower courts in OK ruled funding the Catholic charter school was illegal per state law and their constitution.
Vouchers? Sure, reclaim the portion of YOUR taxes actually paying for YOUR child’s education. Here’s a check for 0 dollars- $0.00. The CAPITALISTS are providing charitably for your child. CHARITY.
Charter schools are by definition public schools. I am attorney who represents public schools. This is not a close question.
Not quite. Charter schools are privately run. But a religious charter school does not need to follow the same rules as public schools. They are independent of the districts where they operate. Public money cannot be used for religious instruction even if its a ‘public’ charter school run by the church. Because they cannot separate their religious teaching from secular teaching. That’s the problem. Therefore taxpayer funds cannot be used to support the charter school.
You are arguing against yourself
Charter schools are public schools, which is why a religious charter school violates the OK state constitution.
“No one should be satisfied with any of this.” And just like those in legacy media and Congress, no one on the “inside” seems to care the Court’s credibility and trust continues to fall. They simply don’t care.
This is hilarious. Turley and pretty much everyone has been denied a means to assign blame or make claims that liberals did this or that or that conservatives did this or that.
Its actually a brilliant outcome. The ruling is as simple as it gets. The lower court’s ruling stands. Thats it.
Barrett’s recusal seems to be that she is a catholic with some pretty strong views of the church and /or that she was associated with one of the parties in previous cases.
MAGA is already spinning conspiracy theories and rumors on Barrett as a traitor or sorts.
Religious zealots didn’t get the outcome they wanted.
Brilliant? Simple huh? No one will ever call you an intellectual.
You have some salient points. Brilliant outcome” sounds cynical, but who’s to say the outcome isn’t a happy-chance, given Barrett’s recusal, due to past affiliations (not reported in public record, when it should have been). Though assigning blame might be too provocative (politically), there is nevertheless the fact of clarification missing without the court’s “opinion”—Turley’s point here should not be diminished.
As for MAGA “spinning” rumors, that is not the case when people reveal their poker-hands: Did you happen to see the way Coney-Barrett looked at Trump as he greeted her, ahead of his sate of the union in February? The look of a despiser, making sh-t face and rolling her eyes, was extremely inappropriate for the venue, but like most libs she refused to contain her open contempt despite her better calling to good example.
Religious zealots??? How ’bout parental zealots looking for a fair and quality way out of an extreme-leftist and FAILED educational system, with a little subsidy in return for their taxes-paid. No need to over aggrandize this issue—in the same way you accuse Turley.
No doubt it was Roberts. Just look at his record. Saves a lot of opinion writing time too.
Darn, guess this means we can’t have taxpayer funded religious Muslim schools teaching Sharia law.
Maybe if Barrett weighs in next time
If Musilm schools, teaching Sharia Law, are prevented from infiltrating then cancelling the real laws of the land, then the Barrett excuse (without accountability) may be tolerated. Professor Turley is right though: the opportunity to clarify on the issue is lost through cowardice and duplicity.
Trump’s Sc picks could not have performed better for extreme-leftist-democrat overlords, who sought to destroy them. What an exchange!
On the bright side, we have taxpayer funded ” schools” down Jersey Shore already. 5k illegal Mexicans in actual school buildings and 42k in private hasidic indoctrination points. With 1/3 of those classified as “special ed” (more dough!). Just one BOE.
https://njedreport.com/whats-going-on-in-lakewood/
https://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/2025/05/08/lakwood-school-education-board-matthew-boxer-michael-inzelbuch/83344986007/
While Justice Barrett may have a good reason to recuse, I fail to see what justice it may serve. I believe W. Shaxper is best served up: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.
And I’ll have egglet, grits, and American Cheese, along with my Hamlet.
– Bubba Gielgud
I don’t know the basis of Justice Barrett’s decision to recuse, but there is nothing that undermines confidence in the law more than a perception that a Judge or Justice is ruling based on personal interests or relationships. We should respect her decision to recuse, even if it led to a frustrating outcome in this particular case.
Instead of funding schools, the government should fund the student and let the parents/guardians decide where to spend that money. Of course, my question is why there is such an entity as “public schools” in the first place.
Education is not a government mandate, anymore than publicly funded healthcare, welfare or food supplement programs, so why should government even be involved. And don’t bring out that old rubric of “for the common good” as we can see the depraved and criminal outcome of all of these government programs.
Why should we fund public schools at the expense of indoctrination by government agents (that is what unionized government employees are in reality).
Your suggestion would be dreadful. Absolutely horrible. Why, there would be no public schools, and hundreds of thousands of indoctrinators would be off the public payroll.
somehow, that doesn’t bother me a bit.
I agree 100%. Very well said.
Lincoln Ignored the Supreme Court the LAST time the Democrats were fighting a Civil War
We need to IGNORE the Supreme Court again!
My money is on Roberts…he is always looking for a way to side with the demons of the left
Instead of me getting constant emails on whether I support a $5,000 check from DOGE, I would rather that they spend that money installing spines in our republican operatives.
Bless their hearts!