SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[archibaldcrane]

.

[Kaslo]

SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law

[archibaldcrane]

SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law

Thread:
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/stat...05560792363008

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4c6_story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to new federal death penalty protocols, potentially clearing the way for the government to resume executions as soon as next month for the first time since 2003.


The court, without comment, declined to take up the lawsuit filed by four death row inmates. As is customary, it gave no reason. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor indicated they would have accepted the case.


Although this removes a significant barrier to restarting federal executions, it does not mean they will automatically proceed as scheduled. The individual inmates facing execution could file additional challenges, which could affect whether and when these sentences are carried out.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...26f_story.html

The Supreme Court delivered an important victory for religious advocates Tuesday, saying states that aid private schools must include religious ones.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for a conservative majority in the 5-to-4 ruling, said the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion requires equal treatment for religious schools and parents who want to send their children to them.
“

A state need not subsidize private education,” Roberts wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

[Ksandra]

I know I'll be the lone voice here, but I actually agree there. I don't like the idea of the gov't discriminating against a private school on religious grounds, just as much as I don't want them discriminating against secular schools on religious grounds.


Now, keep in mind, I don't want them getting preferential treatment either, and tbh I don't think states should be wasting their money on any of them to begin with. But if they are going to give funding to some, they should give to all based on criteria that is about education levels, not whether there is religious practices happening.

[arus2001]

Do such schools get taxed? If not, I'd be vehemently against them getting aid.

[Ksandra]

Do such schools get taxed? If not, I'd be vehemently against them getting aid.

Afaik both religious and secular schools do not pay taxes because they all file as nonprofits.

So yeah, I would agree with you that none of them should get any money from the state. But if the state is going to give it, imo it should be equal.


As an aside my HS was a secular public private school. Way it worked was the surrounding towns pay an extra tax to pay for the tuition. All kids from the towns are allowed to go there tuition-free because of it.


I absolutely love this system, but sadly states have gotten rid of these schools one by one. Since no state money is going towards the schools, the schools don’t have to do shit they don’t want to do. Which means they can afford to have many of the classes most schools have had to cut (ie. Woodshop, home ec, Latin, etc.).

[mallister]

Yeah, no, this is a shit decision. The very last thing we need is subsidized religious education.

[Ksandra]

Yeah, no, this is a shit decision. The very last thing we need is subsidized religious education.

They are not saying that. In fact it states no state is required to subsidize it.

What they are saying if a state DOES subsidize private schools it can’t discriminate against religious schools.

[Ksandra]

Supreme Court was NOT asked whether it’s constitutional to subsidize private schools.

[Ksandra]

The real question is why are states subsidizing any private schools in the first place. But that is definitely not something the Supreme Court is supposed to answer.

[mallister]

No, I get it.

It's still a shit decision.

I had a whole bunch of other shit written but it's not worth it. Nobody needs to be subsidizing religious "education."

[Ksandra]

Then go to the states and fight them? That’s not the job of the Supreme Court to decide. I can’t see how what they said was a “shit decision.”

[arus2001]

From the perspective of religion flying in the face of science and that further contamination of the political process, I can also agree it's a stupid decision before even bringing up the tax thing. Basically, you can probably expect to see no sex ed or talk of evolution of as an example of filtering education. I have no doubt some historical events would be religion-washed in their teaching, too. Also consider being agnostic/atheist/not-the-religion-of-a-specific-school and finding out your tax money is going to them. Supporting education is one thing. Supporting education AND socially cancerous mythology is another.

[Gredival]

They are not saying that. In fact it states no state is required to subsidize it.

What they are saying if a state DOES subsidize private schools it can’t discriminate against religious schools.

Legally, I see the argument for both sides.

On one hand, refusing to fund a school just because it is religious is discrimination on account of religion. However, subsidizing religious schools is directly putting government funds in control of a Church which is blatantly unconstitutional. It's a chicken or the egg.

Consequentially, it is terrible because it is part of a platform whose objective is to cripple funding for public education and excuse it by saying they are giving options such as private education including religious education.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1dc_story.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a significant blow to House Democrats’ efforts to see secret grand jury material from Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying it would decide next term whether Congress is authorized to access the material.


The decision to hear the case next fall keeps the information from the House Judiciary Committee at least until after the election. A lower court ruled that the committee was entitled to see the previously withheld material from Mueller’s probe, which also investigated whether President Trump obstructed the special counsel’s work.


But even if the justices were to affirm the lower court, it is highly unlikely their decision could come before the end of the current congressional term in January.

[6souls]

https://apnews.com/a398c3e7c8d2c4a1b9ad498ed5f86ed7

SCOTUS has rules that states can force the electors to be bound to the popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

[Kirin]

Would that quash any attempt at the national popular vote compact?

[Kaslo]

Would that quash any attempt at the national popular vote compact?

No.