At the outset, I’d like to thank JL A, who knew I have published similar articles as the start of the Supreme Court term. Had she not emailed me the link, I would have missed it. The Supreme Court is evenly split. The four Justices of SCOTUS are Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The four Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) are Roberts, Scalito, Thomas and Kennedy. I fear many cases will be deadlocked, but several will be interesting.
The Supreme Court begins a new term next week with a docket of cases that could have sweeping implications for religious freedom, jury deliberations and congressional redistricting.
Whether the court will be able to resolve all of its cases remains to be seen. The justices deadlocked several times last term, with the court evenly split between the conservative and liberal wings after the death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia…
…Here are five of the most interesting cases before the court.
1. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Pauley
This case centers on a Missouri program that gives schools money to buy recycled tires to resurface playgrounds.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia requested funding for a playground on church property that’s used by its licensed preschool and daycare, called the Learning Center.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied that request, citing state constitutional policy prohibiting public funds supporting churches.
Both the district court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.
The justices are being asked whether religious schools can be denied equal access to government benefits. Trinity additionally argues the rejection is a violation of both the First Amendment’s religious freedom clause and the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law.
Court watchers note that the court accepted this case before Scalia died.
From <The Hill>
I shared just one. Chick through for the other five.
In my opinion, religions schools should not receive government financial aid of any kind. If people want to send their children to religious schools, that is their right, but religious organizations, especially ones representing Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians, want everyone else (taxpayers) to pay for it.
8 Responses to “SCOTUS 4 – SCROTUS 4”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Disclaimer of course: IANAL.
Case 1 – Nice that if (when) they deadlock, the State will prevail.
Case 2 – Well, that's a fine kettle of fish. Sounds like the whistleblowers were trying to do the right thing. (Always reserving that in an ideal world this wouldn't have happened), in an ideal would I would say throw it out and re-try. And make damned sure there is no discrimination among the jurors. Ask them if they are voting for Trump.
Case 3 – Sounds like Samsung has a point. Actual damages should be actual. Of course, that's not knowing anything more about the case thanis stated here.
Case 4 – Talk about splitting hairs. Well, wouldn't you expect hair-splitting in a state that has two Democratic Senators but Rick Snyder for Governor?
Case 5 – Many heavily Dem districts were drawn so as to get all the Dems in one pocket to make other, more mixed districts, consistently Republican. And that certainly sounds like McCrory. Interesting.
Bookmarked to read again.
Thanks, Tom for this.
The first one should be thrown out. Since churches pay no taxes, they should not expect support from taxes. As you said, parents have a choice, public or private schools. If they choose private, they should foot the bill.
The second one should rule for a new trial, if there is a hint of bias from a juror, the person should get a new trial. We have had too many innocent people on death row due to prejudiced jurors.
#3, I agree with Samsung.
#4, As I understand the ADA, this should neverhave happened, the child should have been able to have her service dog with her and the parents certainly not have had to jump through hoops to get this reversed.
#5, I hopethe lower courts are not reversed, the gerrymandering needs to be stopped.
I am totaly with Edie on #1: Pay no taxes? Go scratch!
2- There ought to be away to report bias, though there may be a slippery slpoe aspect to this. Maybe thatjuror ought to run for president. It seems that to some people, those who follow Rush Limbaugh, that's all it takes to qualify.
3-Slpitting hairs? Perhaps the ruling ough tto stand, as a warning about screwing around with other people's intellectul property.
4-WTF? I'm sorry, but this seems like blatant stupidity on the part of the school.
5- Gerrymandering needs to be stopped, period!
1 — How is this in contravention of the freedom of religion? Nobody is saying the school can't worship or follow its own religious conventions. As to the 14th amendment, it would be interesting to hear the argument put forth by Trinity. What clause they think their case falls under — the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, or the Equal Protection Clause. Of course this was accepted before Scalia's demise — he's still has his fingers in the judicial pie! Is there no end?
2 — Peña Rodriguez, in my non legal mind, seems to have a point. While the jurors who made the discrimination claims against other jurors may have gone against established protocol, should that protocol trump (I can't believe I used that word!) Peña Rodriguez's constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th amendment, or protections under any other clause in the constitution? I think not!
3 — It seems that Apple was awarded more than it should have been IMO — one component in several products of the many components that make the products does not warrant 100% of the profits. Samsung has a point. I should however admit a bias — I have a Samsung washer/dryer and Samsung cell phone and I like them.
4 — I'm with Mitch and Edie on this — WTF! The rights of the child are being lost not to mention that the school is being adversarial.
5 — Pretty much anything that goes against the Republican Reichmonster McCrory is good. Gerrymandering anywhere and everywhere must be stopped.
It seems we all agree on all five. Thanks!
1. If a school sets itself apart and wants to be "special" in various ways (curriculum and books, prayers in class, denial of evolution…) then it stands to reason that it thereby forfeits any public funded subsidies. Obviously two lower courts thought so too, so if this is another split, their verdict will stand.
2. This seems to be about the right to question jurors after they've given their verdict, not about a retrial. Seems like the right thing to do, but it's legal implications may be inordinate. A tough case even if politics didn't come into it. An unpolitical SCOTUS with truly good legal minds is sorely needed here.
3. Samsung had to give up its total profits?! Seems a "bit over the top" 😉 Could that have anything to do with the fact Samsung is Korean and not American like Apple? I'm afraid I don't think Samsung has much of a chance here.
4: This is juridical nitpicking by the school to forgo taking any responsibility for it's inhuman and discriminating decisions, all in the hope the parents, and any group supporting them, will desist. Hard to predict what this SCOTUS will read into it.
5. The first one seems like an open and shut case: Gerrymandering must be stopped. But not with this SCOTUS of course. The lower court has already decided this, so if it comes down to a 4-4 decision, that will hold. So republican justices may want to put it last on their agenda so redistricting is impossible before the November elections.
Religious schools are just that, RELIGIOUS, not PUBLIC! Therefore, they should NOT be funded by the PUBLIC, but their RELIGION! Simple!!!