Thoughts on SCOTUS picks??? (Page 1/5)
82-T/A [At Work] JUN 21, 08:27 AM
This CNN article covers the top 4 of perhaps the ~12 that are supposed to be issued in the next two weeks.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06...e-preview/index.html


My thoughts... Rowe vs. Wade will likely be overturned, but I think they will rule in favor of the Democrats (NY, Maine, Biden Administration, respectively) for the other three. I would like to think that their adherence would be strict within Constitutional law (and not saying I know better than they do what that is), and maybe they'll surprise me, but I think the chance of bias is too great.
bonaduce JUN 21, 10:46 AM
Hope the NY law gets defeated, doesn't really matter, NY government will just implement another restriction to limit firearm rights. Like our new law after Buffalo, the dreaded AOW moniker (all other weapons). As for Roe, I hope the court has been trolling and they let it stand
82-T/A [At Work] JUN 21, 10:52 AM

quote
Originally posted by bonaduce:

Hope the NY law gets defeated, doesn't really matter, NY government will just implement another restriction to limit firearm rights. Like our new law after Buffalo, the dreaded AOW moniker (all other weapons). As for Roe, I hope the court has been trolling and they let it stand



Hahah... has the court trolled before? I'm thinking the leaked ruling is pretty much a sure thing... I only say that because they set up barricades around the Supreme Court building... which they would be unlikely to do if the ruling was in favor of upholding it.
82-T/A [At Work] JUN 21, 03:00 PM
So, they voted against Maine and for religious liberty, so I'm wrong already, haha.
MidEngineManiac JUN 21, 08:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

So, they voted against Maine and for religious liberty, so I'm wrong already, haha.



I dont see a problem with religious liberty...

So long as it is applied to all of them equally...

And none of them bother me. MY liberty is actually....."no"...I dont care, not eating fish-fridays and going to enjoy my bacon...

Better yet, ship them all (equally) to the middle east and tier "holey lands", nuke the **** out of the place...shoot any survivors

And we can finally enjoy some peace and quiet.

(oh ya...**** Allah. **** Mohamed, and just STFU and stop bothering us....I live in an Islam-free zone)

<edit>

As for the bible-belt, as I just got reminded....**** off....your gawd, not mine. Not really interested in if you like it or not.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-21-2022).]

blackrams JUN 21, 08:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

So, they voted against Maine and for religious liberty, so I'm wrong already, haha.



I suppose one could look at it like that but, that's not the way I read it. Maine decided to send money to public and private schools but denied that money to religious schools due to the tie in to religion. Thus denying those students the same money (opportunity) that all other schools got for student's education. It appears to me to be more of a win for the student's education versus a victory for religion but, that's just my take on it.

While I've always been an advocate for public schools, I don't think students should have less just because they attend a certain school over another.
But, I also acknowledge that it's the choice of the parents (in most cases) to send their kids to specific schools. But, isn't that the same argument that allowed kids to cross school/government boundaries in order to cancel some racial issues of poorer schools and a right to a better education at a better school?

It's a deep subject and the water at the bottom is cold. Just ask the well digger.

------------------
Rams

Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........

82-T/A [At Work] JUN 21, 08:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I suppose one could look at it like that but, that's not the way I read it. Maine decided to send money to public and private schools but denied that money to religious schools due to the tie in to religion. Thus denying those students the same money (opportunity) that all other schools got for student's education. It appears to me to be more of a win for the student's education versus a victory for religion but, that's just my take on it.

While I've always been an advocate for public schools, I don't think students should have less just because they attend a certain school over another.
But, I also acknowledge that it's the choice of the parents (in most cases) to send their kids to specific schools. But, isn't that the same argument that allowed kids to cross school/government boundaries in order to cancel some racial issues of poorer schools and a right to a better education at a better school?

It's a deep subject and the water at the bottom is cold. Just ask the well digger.





Hah, yeah... I agree, I was saying that my "guesses" were wrong. But I support that ruling, and I'll have to be OK with it too... even if it ends up supporting a religion I'm not particularly fond of at some point in the future.
blackrams JUN 22, 10:28 AM
As a follow up, this popped up this morning on the question of religous schools receiving tax payer funding.

Oklahoma lawmakers respond to SCOTUS ruling on public funds for religious schools

https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...45ee8223d0cd06a02f86

The Supreme Court strikes down Maine's ban on using public funds for religious schools which could ease religious organizations access to taxpayer money.

Fox 25 looked into what this ruling means for Oklahoma's parents and students.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says states don't have to allow public money to be used in private education, but if they do, they cannot keep religious schools out of the program.

This opinion could lead to a renewed push for school choice programs in states that have not directed taxpayer money to private, religious education, like Oklahoma.

Earlier this year, Oklahoma's controversial voucher bill ended up stalling in the legislature.

It would have allowed nearly $120 million in tax money to fund private education.

Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling stirred up reaction again with other state leaders.

Governor Kevin Stitt tweeted, "Huge win for parents, school choice and religious freedom!"

Both Attorney General John O'Conner and Senator James Lankford agreed with Stitt.

Lankford says "Once again, the court has reaffirmed that in America we don't just have the freedom of worship. We have the freedom to live our faith at work, home, school and in public."

Oklahoma House Dems responded by saying this ruling doesn't impact Oklahoma but highlights a trend of weakening laws allowing public money to go to private and religious schools.

In response to the decision, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent, arguing the court selectively applied clauses of the first amendment.


IMHO, the underlined/bolded comment by Justice Roberts says it all. States don't have to fund private schools but, if they do, they can not shut out religious schools. I think that's the fair and correct answer. That's not to suggest I think the taxpayer should be funding private schools but, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Chief Justice Roberts and the Conservative majority of SCOTUS got this one right.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-22-2022).]

ray b JUN 23, 10:01 AM
god boys want to steal tax money to support their fairytale

and want to tell you they are moral while taking your taxes for their cult

wonder if the moslem school will also get funding ?
williegoat JUN 23, 10:49 AM
Check out the 2A decision that just came down!