- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Divided Supreme Court rejects public religious charter school in Oklahoma
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:36 am to Faurot fodder
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:36 am to Faurot fodder
quote:
So, why did one of them recuse? It feels like these frickers recuse when they shouldn't, and never do when they should.
Idk, maybe because she went to private catholic school her whole life, Notre Dame JD, All girls Dominican Grad from New Orleans. She would have a biased ruling.
0
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:38 am to Tiger Prawn
I agree.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:38 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
The straw man is talking about imaginary "radical Islamic schools" that don't exist.
No. That's called a hypothetical. You use hypotheticals to test the legal standards being argued (especially with new proposed standards as there can be no tactile examples in that putative reality).
You offered a standard. I offered a hypothetical to test that standard.
Instead of analyzing and giving a response to the hypothetical, you changed it and THEN crafted a response around that manufactured example. That's called a straw man fallacy.
quote:
It's honestly amazing that you used the term straw man while defending one.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 10:50 am
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:46 am to Jbird
It was a mistake not to recognize this nation as being ruled by Christ and adjusting the 1st amendment accordingly.
The state is supposed to work alongside the Church (though not assume the responsibility of the Church in religious affairs) by punishing evil according to God's moral law and providing support for the spread of the Gospel.
What we have in this country is a rejection of Christianity in the public sphere in the name of pluralism. We are not a Christian nation, so I don't know why anyone would be surprised by these outcomes.
The state is supposed to work alongside the Church (though not assume the responsibility of the Church in religious affairs) by punishing evil according to God's moral law and providing support for the spread of the Gospel.
What we have in this country is a rejection of Christianity in the public sphere in the name of pluralism. We are not a Christian nation, so I don't know why anyone would be surprised by these outcomes.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:49 am to Jbird
fricking idiots
The Bill of Rights, thus the 1st amendment, thus the establishment clause, exist to protect religion from government, not to protect govt from religion
Our courts have been utterly corrupt on this topic for over 60-70 years
Absolute intentional corruption
The Bill of Rights, thus the 1st amendment, thus the establishment clause, exist to protect religion from government, not to protect govt from religion
Our courts have been utterly corrupt on this topic for over 60-70 years
Absolute intentional corruption
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:55 am to Faurot fodder
quote:Amy Coney Barrett recused d/t connections with Nicole Garnett who was one of the lawyers on this case. Both Barrett and Garnett were affiliated with Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic, which represented the school.
why did one of them recuse?
Didn't stop Kagan from weighing in on Obamacare after serving as Obama's solicitor general though. Garnett can't be too pleased given the outcome, but in the end, I'm guessing Roberts was the responsible deciding vote.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 11:06 am
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:58 am to Ingeniero
quote:
You want KBJ ruling on cases where she's the auntie of the plaintiff?
That hasn't stopped some judges from staying on a case they shouldn't rule on due to a percieved or blantant conflict of interest.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:00 am to arktiger28
She is not a liberal by any stretch. Her background is quite the opposite.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:01 am to loogaroo
quote:
ACB strikes again.
This is actually a good ruling, the government should not fund any religious school. I say this as a Catholic. Government should stay out of any religious education.
If this was approved you would have the government having to fund satanic schools, muslim schools, etc
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:02 am to Jbird
This is how stupid she is, she recused because her Notre Dame affiliated firm started up this particular charter shoo (something to that affect). But once another case comes forth she will be able to vote.
Well, why not just say this sets a NATIONAL PRESCEDENT, and it would be a waste of tax dollars not to rule on this now. Who was the Conservative coward? Roberts? SMH
Well, why not just say this sets a NATIONAL PRESCEDENT, and it would be a waste of tax dollars not to rule on this now. Who was the Conservative coward? Roberts? SMH
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 11:06 am
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:03 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Even with state funding, this would be unsuccessful. You fools always talk about imagining things that have no demand and wouldn't be able to stay open.
With government funding there wouldn't need to be a demand.
The church of satan has already successfully sued to be apart of after school groups
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:08 am to TBoy
quote:
I have a hard time understanding how four Supreme Court justices would have voted in favor of establishing a Catholic government school.
I have a hard time understanding how a justice would reject a charter school on the sole basis of religion. That seems blatantly unconstitutional.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:08 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
fricking idiots The Bill of Rights, thus the 1st amendment, thus the establishment clause, exist to protect religion from government, not to protect govt from religion Our courts have been utterly corrupt on this topic for over 60-70 years Absolute intentional corruption
Why do you want your government running your catholic school?
I send my kids to catholic school specifically to keep them out of government schools.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:09 am to JimEverett
quote:
That seems blatantly unconstitutional.
In what way?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:15 am to Jbird
I don’t have a problem with it. Private and/or religious schools shouldn’t be partnering with the state. Not because of “separation of church and state” but I want the state to have as little say as possible in private education. When the state funds it they can control it. No thank you.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:19 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:
This is actually a good ruling, the government should not fund any religious school. I say this as a Catholic. Government should stay out of any religious education.
In Louisiana, vouchers can be used at a number of Catholic schools which is essentially the same thing as funding a religious public school - right?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:21 am to Ingeniero
quote:
You want KBJ ruling on cases where she's the auntie of the plaintiff?
Lol at anyone who thinks she would.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:23 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Why do you want your government running your catholic school?
I send my kids to catholic school specifically to keep them out of government schools.
too bad you didn't benefit from catholic school, since you can't read
it's a public religious charter school
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:24 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
it's a public religious charter school
Yea I don't want that.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:31 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Yea I don't want that.
Really?
I grew up in public schools and we stood for the pledge every morning and we bowed our heads for prayer at football games.
(and I'm not a Boomer)
jerk your head out
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News