The U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the Oklahoma religious charter school issue. St. Isadore of Seville Catholic School applied for public funding to sponsor an online religious school. The tie decision means that the last decision–which ruled against the proposal–stands.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because of a previous relationship with one of the school’s founders.
The decision was unsigned, but one of the Court’s conservative Justices voted with the three liberal Justices to produce a tie vote.
Remember, this is a Court whose conservative Justices claim to be originalists. Their decisions on matters of church and states indicate a flexible, if not hypocritical, application of “originalism.” Over more than two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has struggled to maintain separation of church and state. They have found exceptions to Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation, allowing public funds for textbooks and state-mandated services, but over the years the courts attempted to avoid the state paying for tuition or teachers’ salaries.
Yet this Court seems to laying the groundwork for tearing that Wall down completely. In previous decisions, the conservative majority has ruled that failure to fund religious schools was a denial of religious freedom.
Such a conclusion does not align with Originalism. No matter how hard Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Sam Alito scours the historical record, they are unable to build a case that the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court want the public to subsidize the cost of religious or private schools.
The only thing “original” about their recent decisions requiring states to pay tuition at religious schools in Maine and Montana and capital costs at a religious school in Missouri is their conclusion. They invented a right out of whole cloth.

It should be interesting to see what the implications of this ruling will be? Could it have implications for using public money to fund vouchers for religious schools, as this is already happening in many red states?
LikeLike
My impression is that the Supreme Court is laying the groundwork for vouchers. This one is a bump in the road.
But I hope they don’t claim That vouchers for religious schools were intended by the Founding Fathers. Not so. Fiction.
They are Originalists when it suits them. But they forget Originalism when they need to.
LikeLike
Diane: This is really good news (for a change)–I’m keeping an eye out for what Pope Leo will have to say about it, if anything. If guilt spreads, the Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself even asking for such a thing in a democratic political environment. (Everything is so Orwellian now.)
As a general comment, every time I turn on the TV after some “time off,” I cringe, waiting for the next monster to jump out of the screen.
Also, please tell someone close to J. D. Vance to tell him: that the judges are not trying to usurp Trump’s authority. Rather they are merely interpreting the law into individual circumstances (their job) with the assumption (ha ha) that Trump et al also think that no one is above the law, including the president (ha ha).
It only sounds like the judges are trying to control Trump because he insists on breaking the law. Vance’s interpretation of the court-to-president relationship is in the same ignorant bag as the head of another department failing to understand habeas corpus. (I’m trying to be nice, so I erased “bimbo.”)
The only question is whether its widespread ignorance (of the tenets of democracy including the law) or if it’s veiled complicity in a retribalization of America. CBK
LikeLiked by 2 people
CBK,
Trump has a losing streak in federal courts because he has repeatedly tried to rewrite the Constitution, you know, the one he swore to uphold. He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, which is clearly part of the Constitution. He wants to eliminate due process, also part of the Constitution. Even conservative judges don’t go along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Diane: OH, THAT one.
But that was my point about Vance–he seems to think the judges are “going after Trump.” As if Trump’s breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution had nothing to do with all of the lawsuits and Trump’s losses of them.
There’s no other option: Vance is either grossly under-educated and now willfully ignorant, or he is trying to speak to the similarly politically uneducated in the MAGA base and so is complicit in the destruction of the USA as we know (knew) it. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
“Vance is either grossly under-educated and now willfully ignorant, or he is trying to speak to the similarly politically uneducated in the MAGA base”
Vance is a puppet for Peter Thiel, a hard core Christian theocrat, who has his hand up Vance’s rear to manipulate what he says. Thiel wants a Christian Nationalist Theocracy.
You may think that the politically uneducated are the MAGA base but most of the MAGAs that I know have a degree, some graduate degrees, and/or have been very successful businessmen. They are not uneducated in any sense.
LikeLike
Hi Duane: In my view, it’s a prima facia case that many in the Trump camp are uneducated-by virtue of what they say and do. But then, I probably have a different idea of what “educated” means, and from my own travels through academia as both a student (later in life comparatively) and as an instructor/teacher, taking classes and graduating is no guarantee that a person actually received an education–in this case, we are talking about both political and moral education (many today shifted to STEM which is okay, except that they left a humanities education behind; but there is so much more to it, like history and the social sciences.
The problem with cultism, though it will always be with us, . . . . Also, Musk isn’t even an adult, much less an educated adult. Then there is that a person can be exposed to a good education, and get nothing from it.
Good to hear from you, CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like you, I think the daily news is cringe worthy. However, I have to admit my surprise at how Amy Coney Barrett has conducted herself on the bench. No way in H*** would Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito ever recuse themselves when they have conflicts. Not only did she recuse, but she has sided with the “liberals” several times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Running Granny: Yes, Barrett has also surprised me. She jumped the stereotype I was, earlier, thinking out of. What a fresh apple in a barrel full of rot. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Amy Coney Barrett has been surprising on some issues. The Court often breaks along gender lines when Barrett joins the three female liberals.
I was very pleased to see she recused herself on this one as she is very much in the pro-religion camp. She indeed has far more integrity than any of the guys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 steps forward for Roberts and one step back . ” So reasonable” will be the coverage. Till the ax falls next decision. Which I would venture a guess is heading to a District Court this morning.
LikeLike
WHAT IS EXTREMELY TROUBLING is the fact that four of the Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of using government money to fund a religious school which had plainly stated that it would continue to indoctrinate its students in a specific religion.
THAT is a clear violation both of the Establishment Clause of The First Amendment and of the Court’s 1947 Emerson v. Board of Education ruling which stated that: “Neither [a state nor the federal government] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
It’s shocking and debasing of the Supreme Court that the “originalists” on the Roberts Court simply ignored the fact that the tradition of erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state predates even the Constitution: Already back in 1635, Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island Colony, declared that a “wall of separation” must forever stand between our American government from any religion.
And who better to know the original meaning of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause than Founding Father Thomas Jefferson who had the benefit of learning its meaning from the other Founding Fathers who thoroughly vetted the Establishment Clause before writing it into our Constitution? In Jefferson’s famous 1802 letter to the Connecticut Baptist Convention, Jefferson quoted Roger William’s “wall of separation” phrase to explain to the Convention that is exactly what Jefferson’s fellow Founding Fathers meant by the Establishment Clause.
And yet, least four of today’s “originalist” Supreme Court Justices presume to know better than Roger Williams and Founding Father Thomas Jefferson what “wall of separation” and the Establishment Clause mean, even though these presumptive Roberts Court Justices never spoke to Williams, to Jefferson, or to any of our Founding Fathers.
Clearly, the Justices who ruled in favor of funding the Oklahoma Catholic charter school are so lacking in scruples that they simply abandoned their “originalist” principles in order to rule as ideologues.
The Roberts Court will live in infamy, just like the Taney Court whose Dred Scott decision tore our nation apart and launched the bloody Civil War.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your posts are always so well written and well informed. Such a great pleasure reading them. Thank you, Quickwrit!
Nothing quick about what you do, ofc. This kind of style and grace in prose and this depth of learning takes a lifetime to acquire.
LikeLike
even though these presumptive Roberts Court Justices never spoke to Williams, to Jefferson, or to any of our Founding Fathers.
Though, to be fair, Alito did commune, so to speak, with the English jurist Sir Matthew Hale, who executed people for witchcraft and supported marital rape. See the infamous Dodds decision.
LikeLike
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because of a previous relationship with one of the school’s founders.
Integrity. Unlike what is routinely demonstrated by others on the court.
LikeLike