The Court’s Republican majority has ground the Constitution’s establishment clause down to a nub.

The Court’s Republican majority has ground the Constitution’s establishment clause down to a nub.

  • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
    1·
    11 months ago

    Some quotes i think make a good summary:

    Charter schools are public entities funded by state tax revenue. Among other things, the complaint points to a provision of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides that public education funds may not be “used for any other purpose than the support and maintenance of common schools for the equal benefit of all the people of the State.” And several school policies described in the complaint indicate that St. Isidore does not intend to operate for the equal benefit of all students.

    As the Supreme Court said in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

    The Court’s GOP-appointed majority has even ruled that the Constitution requires the government to fund religion

    How can there be a separation of church and state if public funds are used to support private religious schools?

    As the quotes above show, the current US Supreme Court is continuing to take a very different approach to established law than its predecessors. Just as we saw with Roe vs Wade, they clearly do not take issue with overturning established precedent. I will not be surprised if they overturn precedent once more and allow public funds to be used to support religious institutions.

    This is further supported by the outcomes of cases such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) where they have been systematically and strategically weakening the laws separating church and state to allow this to happen. They blur the lines more and more with each case until they can finally build the precedent they need to justify overturning established precedent – even if it’s contrary to the letter of the law.

    Thoughts? It is certainly a concerning trend and it is made even more worrisome by the fact the Supreme Court cannot be voted out of office.