The official thread of SCOTUS cementing the US as a theocractic fascist state.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

It means if the state wants to provide education funding to private schools, they don’t get to discriminate on the basis of things like religious affiliation.

 

The actual solution here is for the government to not subsidize private schools at all. Private schools should stand on their own two feet, or close up if they can’t.

That won’t work anymore lol

Supreme Court: Montana Can't Exclude Religious Schools From Scholarship Program

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

The 5-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's other conservatives, is a win for parents who wanted to use the state tax credit to help send children to religious schools.

Quote

Tuesday's case began in 2015 when the Montana Legislature passed a bill providing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for individuals who donate to organizations that provide scholarship money to students in private schools. An organization called Big Sky began raising money to fund these scholarships, using the tax credit as an incentive. Of the 13 schools that got scholarship money from Big Sky, 12 were religious schools. Indeed, 70% of all private schools in Montana are religiously affiliated.

 

Ultimately, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the entire tax credit program for all private schools, religious and nonreligious alike. It said the tax credit conflicted with the state Constitution, which bars all state aid for religious education, whether direct or indirect, including tax subsidies such as this one.

 

But in Tuesday's opinion, Roberts said the state court had it backward.

"A state need not subsidize private education, but once it decides to do so it cannot disqualify some private schools because they are religious," he wrote. Thus the tax credit created by the Montana Legislature to benefit students attending qualifying private schools, including religious ones, must stand as originally designed.

 

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rebutted Roberts' argument. She said that because the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program entirely, it did not discriminate against students attending religious schools at all. Because the state court's "judgment put all private school parents in the same boat—this Court had no occasion to address the matter," Ginsburg wrote. 

 

In a separate dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer asked: "What are the limits of the Court's holding?" He feared that the court's logic could lead to extreme consequences in the future, perhaps even a decision requiring states to fund private religious schools even if they would rather use their money to fund public schools exclusively.

Conservatives operating in bad faith here. And NPRs framing of the article summarizing here fucking sucks too. 
 

i urge everyone to understand they are

christian nationalist crusaders and that they’ve already arrived at their conclusions it’s just a matter of getting legal cover after the fact

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

That won’t work anymore lol

Supreme Court: Montana Can't Exclude Religious Schools From Scholarship Program

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

The 5-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's other conservatives, is a win for parents who wanted to use the state tax credit to help send children to religious schools.

Conservatives operating in bad faith here. And NPRs framing of the article summarizing here fucking sucks too. 
 

i urge everyone to understand they are

christian nationalist crusaders and that they’ve already arrived at their conclusions it’s just a matter of getting legal cover after the fact

 

The Montana case is not really similar. The Montana case had to do not with direct funding of the private schools, but indirect funding with regard to tax credits for organizations that provide scholarships.

 

The Maine case is a direct funding scheme when the state cuts a check to the school that these rural parents choose to send their kids to.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

The Montana case is not really similar. The Montana case had to do not with direct funding of the private schools, but indirect funding with regard to tax credits for organizations that provide scholarships.

 

The Maine case is a direct funding scheme when the state cuts a check to the school that these rural parents choose to send their kids to.

Do you think this court would make that distinction? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Today's 6-3 decisions:

 

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

 

Quote

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

 

The 6-3 ruling, with the court's conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices in dissent, struck down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. The court found that the law, enacted in 1913, violated a person's right to "keep and bear arms" under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

 

The ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, declared that the Constitution protects "an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."

 

Thomas added: "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

 

The New York restriction is unconstitutional because it "prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms," Thomas added.

 

 

Some further commentary:

 

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court protects police from 'Miranda' lawsuits

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from the risk of paying money damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.

 

Quote

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from the risk of paying money damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.

 

The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the officer of violating his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

 

Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted at trial.

 

 

[Uaarkson]

This court is sowing real chaos now.

[BloodyHell]

Live updates: Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. Follow here for live news updates...

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

So basically there's NO restrictions States can place on gun ownership now, is that right? This is insane.

[BloodyHell]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So basically there's NO restrictions States can place on gun ownership now, is that right? This is insane.

Its definitely a really bad precedent.

States rights party though......

[skillzdadirecta]

I mean Clarence Thomas literally equates gun ownership with free speech. His argument is summed up as if you can't regulate free speech, you can't regulate guns. Insanity... New York City with a bunch of gun packing folks on the Subway is a terrifying place. Also, with this ruling can you now prohibit an 18 year old from carrying a gun to school? What about bars and clubs? Does this make metal detectors pointless? Businesses can no longer tell folks they can't carry their firearms into their establishments? 

[Amazatron]

So when can I carry around a tactical nuke for “self-defense”?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

Pretty much. This is a generational ruling... That New York law was on the books for 100 years.

[mclumber1]

33 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So basically there's NO restrictions States can place on gun ownership now, is that right? This is insane.

 

That's not what I gather from the ruling.  NYS can have a licensing scheme, but they can't make the denial process arbitrary.  Basically, the court said if NYS says that if you meet XYZ requirements to own/carry a firearm, then the state cannot deny you a permit.  Most other states that have a concealed weapons license program do it this way.

[Jason]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

38 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So basically there's NO restrictions States can place on gun ownership now, is that right? This is insane.

 

Well, no.

 

While the court did strike down the NY law, it did so on the basis of the "good cause" provision of the law.  The court had no objections to the other provisions of the law (over 21, training, etc.).

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

"Completely impotent response" might as well the catch-phrase for the Biden presidency.

[skillzdadirecta]

11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

That's not what I gather from the ruling.  NYS can have a licensing scheme, but they can't make the denial process arbitrary.  Basically, the court said if NYS says that if you meet XYZ requirements to own/carry a firearm, then the state cannot deny you a permit.  Most other states that have a concealed weapons license program do it this way.

 

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Well, no.

 

While the court did strike down the NY law, it did so on the basis of the "good cause" provision of the law.  The court had no objections to the other provisions of the law (over 21, training, etc.).

Well THAT changes EVERYTHING.

[marioandsonic]

 

[osxmatt]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I mean Clarence Thomas literally equates gun ownership with free speech. His argument is summed up as if you can't regulate free speech, you can't regulate guns. Insanity... New York City with a bunch of gun packing folks on the Subway is a terrifying place. Also, with this ruling can you now prohibit an 18 year old from carrying a gun to school? What about bars and clubs? Does this make metal detectors pointless? Businesses can no longer tell folks they can't carry their firearms into their establishments? 

 

He draws this equivalence because it's what most Republicans genuinely believe. That the 1st and 2nd Amendment are equal in weight, and if anything, the 1st Amendment only exists (historically and in the future if necessary) because of the 2nd Amendment.

[Guest]

The 1st and 2nd are equal in weight, which is the whole problem.

 

Repeal the 2nd, or else we are always a FedSoc tilted court away from such a mess.

[mclumber1]

Unless an amendment directly conflicts with another, they have equal weight.  sbfilms is right, the only remedy to your issue of them being equal, is a repeal of the Second Amendment

[Kal-El814]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

Unless an amendment directly conflicts with another, they have equal weight.  sbfilms is right, the only remedy to your issue of them being equal, is a repeal of the Second Amendment

 

Now you’re talking.

[skillzdadirecta]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The 1st and 2nd are equal in weight, which is the whole problem.

 

Repeal the 2nd, or else we are always a FedSoc tilted court away from such a mess.

Are they though? I know we quibble about what the phrase "Well Regulated" means in the 2nd, but there is no such language in the first amendement. And even Free speech is limited... you can't slander or libel folks without some kind of legal repurcussion. Jesus christ I've never been a "ban all guns" kind of guy but my god. This country just isn;t responsible enough for this "right" and more guns in NYC is NOT a good thing. No way in HELL would I feel safe there and I grew up with the NY of the 80's and 90's.

[Ghost_MH]

We really do need bullet laws. Maximum number of bullets a person can carry on their person? If that number must be more than zero, I suggest 1. Come on. Cops just love measuring out and counting how much contraband folks are carrying. Make it a simple fine, no jail time. Police can keep the money from the fine and the bullets. Feed into a cop's base desires.

[BloodyHell]

46 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

We really do need bullet laws. Maximum number of bullets a person can carry on their person? If that number must be more than zero, I suggest 1. Come on. Cops just love measuring out and counting how much contraband folks are carrying. Make it a simple fine, no jail time. Police can keep the money from the fine and the bullets. Feed into a cop's base desires.

Bullets are a part of arms  the court would strike it all down as infringement.

[CitizenVectron]

45 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

Bullets are a part of arms  the court would strike it all down as infringement.

 

Then a ban on the explosives needed for the charges/caps. 

[BloodyHell]

7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Then a ban on the explosives needed for the charges/caps. 

You're just arguing semantics that will continue to be struck down, and you know it. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What other rights are beholden to private companies? Nationalize all the guns manufacturers 

[mclumber1]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What other rights are beholden to private companies? Nationalize all the guns manufacturers 

 

Freedom of the press? 

 

EDIT:  Freedom of speech also, if you are using a computer to post on the internet. 

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

Bullets are a part of arms  the court would strike it all down as infringement.

 

We can put limits on the volume of speech, the locations people can speak, and the number of people speaking in one place at one time. If we can set curfews on speech, we can set on when people can carry.

 

Guns would be the only right that is completely open to any sort of regulation.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Freedom of the press? 

People often would start their own paper if you want to use an originalist argument, especially at the time . Into the 20th century there was a great number of independent publications. And today you can easily start your own website.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

We can put limits on the volume of speech, the locations people can speak, and the number of people speaking in one place at one time. If we can set curfews on speech, we can set on when people can carry.

 

Guns would be the only right that is completely open to any sort of regulation.

Funny how we can limit that type of speech but somehow the financing of campaigns and other things like that can’t be regulated or it will have a chilling effect. CURIOUS

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

People often would start their own paper if you want to use an originalist argument, especially at the time . Into the 20th century there was a great number of independent publications. And today you can easily start your own website.

 

Sure - but it would still require you to go out and purchase a printing press and all of the supplies needed to print what you wanted to be distributed. 

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

We can put limits on the volume of speech, the locations people can speak, and the number of people speaking in one place at one time. If we can set curfews on speech, we can set on when people can carry.

 

Guns would be the only right that is completely open to any sort of regulation.

 

Time/place/manner restrictions on speech also apply to gun rights, in my opinion.