|
WASHINGTON—Following today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement:
“Today’s argument revealed a closely divided court that appeared skeptical of the most far-reaching and dangerous theories advanced by the petitioners.
“Thankfully, several justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, questioned the petitioners’ standing and asked hard questions of the right-wing Institute for Justice, which is trying to advance a contradictory and truly radical legal theory that would undermine public financing of public education in 38 states.
“Make no mistake, if a majority of the justices side with the petitioners, the Supreme Court will be responsible for unleashing a virtual earthquake in this country that threatens both religious liberty and public education. It would turn more than two centuries of American history and our understanding of the Constitution and religious liberty on their head, and mandate public taxpayer support for religious schools.
“We know that in previous cases, Justice Roberts did not embrace this kind of radical rewrite of the Constitution. But the right wing has been stealthy in how it has operated, knowing the court is acutely aware of public opinion.
“This case is being spearheaded by the right-wing IFJ, which has collected tens of millions of dollars from the Waltons, the DeVoses, Charles Koch and other wealthy donors to attack public education. They are bankrolling this effort as a backdoor attempt to get the court to impose Betsy DeVos’ failed agenda of private school vouchers nationwide. It is no coincidence that DeVos was at the court in person today to hear oral arguments.
“As a person of faith, I’m deeply worried about the impact this case could have. Our freedom to practice our religion comes from free exercise clause and the separation of church and state. The framers never intended to require public funding of religious institutions or schools. In fact, that’s exactly what the free exercise clause and the separation of church and state were meant to prevent. And as a teacher and a believer in public education, I am deeply worried about the effects of this case on the financing of our public schools, which are attended by 90 percent of our children.
“Teachers, students, parents, school staff, and all allies who believe in public education understand the stakes. Whatever the court decides, we will continue our fight to oppose this blatant attack on our nation’s very foundations.” |
Randi’s words should be read and digested by all Americans. This case is vital to preserving public schools free from imposition of one religion on all students…and which opens up all public agencies to be led by that religion. Americans have done well living with separation of church and state. Thanks Diane for this info, and I will post it right now on my FB page and send it to all my lists…hope everyone does the same.
Analysis from SCOTUSblog.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-divided-in-montana-school-choice-case/#more-291418
The religious question is Constitutionally appropriate, and also pragmatic, since most voucher schools [everywhere] are religious. Nonetheless it feels to me like an end run around the taxpayers– a giant strawman, distracting with its emotional appeal to “religious liberty.” How about the larger question – for taxpayers – who support the public school system attended by the vast majority of American children: taxation without representation? It applies not only to voucher schools, but also to any state charter law where (a)unelected bureaucrats impose charters on districts without public consent, (b)charter boards have no public representation, (c)charters hide behind ‘corporate veil’ to escape thorough financial vetting despite public funding.
P.S., I meant to introduce that with, I like Ginsberg’s position that the plaintiff parents are not “the taxpayers” & therefore have no standing.
yes
Many Supreme Court Justices excell at creating strawman arguments to support their ideologically based rulings.
what “law” is so often all about
One of the biggest strawman arguments is “original intent”, which often has little or nothing to do with the actual intent of the framers.
I have not heard any of the conservatives talking about the original intent of the framers to keep church and state separate.
The libertarians want to get the government out of our lives by defunding Social Security, Medicare, etc. but want the government to fund religious schools.
Charter schools are already bad enough, now this! Do these religious schools have publicly elected school boards? Or will they be answerable to the actual duly elected school board of the district? Oh, of course not, this is upside down reverse world of the libertarian/religious knuckleheads. They want it all, public tax monies and they are unanswerable to the tax paying public. Their motto is: just give me the money and shut up already.
The libertarians are odd. They want to eliminate all government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, but expand government subsidy of religious schools.
And like the French, would Randi call for a nationwide educator strike as an act of nonviolent resistance and rebellion against this horrible melange of religion and state?
Unless you enjoy passing out, don’t hold your breath,
It’s been reported that the the Espinosa case wasn’t on the radar of unions like the AFT until recently. If true, it reflects poor strategic planning that jeopardizes public education and the nation’s advancement.
The Justice Dept. is expediting cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayer criticized her fellow justices for allowing it.
“Trump’s Selective Urgency”, 1-23-2020, Axios
There is an irony in this case
“Give me the money and shut up already.” Is actually the motto of many Western States where ranching and mineral extraction are influential and very vocal interests. They want the federal aid — in the form of essentially free use of public lands and resources — but don’t want the federal government placing restrictions on it.
So it is actually ironic that the state of Montana is arguing against the use of federal funds for private interests — although such use IS strictly forbidden by the state Constitution.
Yeah, but. This is a social issue, & those states (unlike SW) seem to think independently on those issues, favoring ‘live & let live’ w/minimal state (or fed) interference.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/john-roberts-supreme-court-religious-schools-montana.html