Supreme Court Ruling On Funding Religious Schools Was The Absolute Wrong One

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545

That public funding of religious schools has no place in a secular society ought to be a no-brainer. But it evidently isn't given the conservo justices in the Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that a Montana scholarship program could not preclude its use to attend private religious schools.   According to the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts:

"A state need not subsidize  private education. But once a state decides to do so it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."

What's the problem here? It is violating Jefferson's "Wall of separation" and the First Amendment by enabling public tax payer monies to be used to fund private, religious educations. This doesn't fly, sorry! Worse, it uses money that might have gone to enhancing resources at public schools and puts it in private hands! This is an abomination. 

When one also learns (WSJ, p. A16) that in 2018 the state Supreme Court struck down the program, given Montana's constitution "bans any direct or indirect payments to any schools or institutions controlled by any church, sect or denomination", it makes the 5-4 conservo decision even more appalling.

Of course, the WSJ editorial nabobs, as they are often wont to do, cast the state's constitutional prohibition in terms of "prejudice" i.e. 

"Many states passed such provisions, often called Blaine Amendments, amid the anti-Catholic fervor of the late 1800s."

Evidently forgetting or discounting Jefferson's cornerstone principle of the wall of separation as articulated in his letter to Danbury Baptists (1802), in which he wrote:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Thereby providing an abiding, unwritten principle that has been practiced on multiple judicial levels since.   The most famous ruling arising?  The 1962 case brought by Madalyn Murray -O'Hair  which has kept prayer out of the public schools, as it should be.   This is irrespective of the Journal's bloviations that -- never mind the Chief's sometime "missteps"  -  John Roberts "sides with the angels in disputes over religious liberty".  

The truth is he sides with the religious extremists (Christian nationalists, Trump-worshipping evangelicals, Opus Dei Catholics etc.)  still seeking a Theocratic state where none is warranted or justified. So it is not a case of  "protecting" religious liberty but enabling religious transgression and hegemony over the secular state.  For those who believe this is over the top maligning of the religious I invite you to check out Americans United for Separation of Church & State's short video  about the Christian extremist program to take over the country,  "Project Blitz".

Meanwhile,  the court's four liberal justices disagreed with the  conservo majority opinion, but on different grounds.  As a separate opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out (joined by Justice Elena Kagan, WSJ, p. A2)  "no constitutional violation occurred  because the Montana court decision treated religious  and secular schools equally."

Clearly, the Roberts' conservo lapdogs are more invested in pandering to the Religious Right's malcontents and others than they are in respecting the constitution or separation of church and state.

Yes, I myself benefited from a private (Catholic parochial) high school education, however, I paid for it myself. I asked no state or government to take from the taxpayer's till to fund the education I wanted.  I negotiated a contract with the Marist Brothers  who ran the school (Monsignor Edward Pace High in Carol City, FL )  to work after class hours, to clean classrooms, science labs etc. This provided just enough to pay the tuition.($200/month).

My argument is if any of these kids desiring escape from public schools want the same kind of private education, then fine, but find a way to pay for it themselves! (Or let their parents!)   But under no conditions, rob the public schools and taxpayer monies to pay for it.   In the words of Anna Maria Chavez, executive Director of the National School Boards Association (WSJ, ibid.):

"States historically have committed themselves to supporting public education by restricting the use of taxpayer funds for religious schools. State legislatures everywhere should act now to erase the long sought loophole opponents of public schools have gained by rescinding short sighted voucher programs and tax credit schemes aimed at redirecting public to private schools with no accountability."

See Also:

• The School Voucher Scam: When Will Politicos Wake Up?

Poor Little Reep Senators "Bored" Having To Sit Still & Listen During Trial - Maybe It's Time These Useless Imps Get Real Jobs

"What a bunch of entitled complainers. Thousands of Americans do precisely this each day serving in jury duty, yet some of these elected officials -- elected precisely to serve their constituents and pay attention in one of the rarest Senate proceedings to take place -- cannot muster the self-discipline and stamina to actually sit still, pay attention, and reach an impartial determination. My 10 and 12 year old sons have better discipline, self-control, and manners than these clowns." - 'Chloe' - commenting about bored GOP Senators (NY Times)


We learned Friday (WSJ, 'Marathon Days Make Many Senators Antsy', p. A4)  that Senators (mostly Repukes),  required to sit through the Trump impeachment trial in silence and without their smart phones, have "grown increasingly comfortable testing those rules" as the trial wears on.

According to Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota.:

"We’re doing our best.  With each break and with each disruption if you will, to the sitting in the chair, there becomes a little less discipline."

Awww...boo hoo and hoo.  Cry me a river you worthless little imp. An historical Senate trial is under way requiring your rapt attention and you choose to make excuses to fritter away time.

Incredibly, despite impeachment trial rules that require them to sit silently at their desks when the proceeding is in session, senators have increasingly been wandering out for short or long breaks, to accommodate bathroom stops, telephone calls and even cable television appearances. On Thursday afternoon, as the Democratic impeachment managers took turns speaking during their second full day of presentations, at least 19 Reepo senators could briefly be seen out of their seats.

Some rose from their chairs and crossed the chamber to whisper to one another, while others exited the chamber entirely for 15- to 20-minute stretches and could be seen in the cloakrooms on their phones.

Those who remained in their seats often took up some elaborate distractions. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who was noodling over a crossword puzzle on Wednesday, could be seen on Thursday laboring over a detailed sketch of the Capitol. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, twice appeared to swipe at an Apple watch on his wrist, despite the ban on electronics. Multiple senators, in an apparent attempt to rouse themselves, could be seen vigorously chomping on gum- including Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst.

Meanwhile, Ben Sasse brought in a tin of Red Man  chewing tobacco, right onto the Senate floor. (If you've ever dealt with this stuff - as I have had to  with AK students in space physics labs- and seen the spittle left behind you'd know it ain't cool.)  Well, at least he had to bury it when the sergeant-at -arms chastised him.

During the lunch break on Thursday, Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, passed out fidget spinners for his 52 Republican colleagues, the better to pass the time.

Fidget spinners?   NO wonder so many refer to you morons as Reeptards.  Don't you bozos have the minimal focus to pay attention for the time - excepting lunch, dinner and restroom breaks?    The plague of inattention and ploys to avoid doing their duty reached such a point that Barry Black - the Senate chaplain- opened Thursday's session with the following prayer (WSJ, ibid.):

"Lord, help them to remember that listening is often more than hearing. It can be an empathetic attentiveness that builds bridges and unites."

The WSJ piece goes on to try to portray the difficulty of conducting an historic Senate trial in the modern world - beset as it is with millions of distractions, social media intrusions etc.:

"The wandering attention of some lawmakers reflects the challenge of holding antiquated trial proceedings in the smart phone era, when most Americans reflexively scroll and click through periods of tedium.

Unlike their counterparts in 1789, who set the parameters for impeachment in the Constitution, Senators today rarely sit and listen to complex oral presentations for hours on end.""

Well, maybe it's past time that changed.  Perhaps - if these cretins possess the attention span of slugs- they aren't truly qualified to be in the Senate. Maybe they ought to leave and form their own 'old boys' club somewhere - a place they can fidget spin, do crosswords, chew gum, chomp Red Man, and blow farts to their heart's content. Perhaps they simply aren't up to the cerebral stature of their forbears and the founders. 

Among the lamest of excuses is one offered by Sen. John Barrasso (WY) who opined (ibid.):

"If you really want to play close attention, you can't do it from your seat. You have to do from either standing in front of the video screens or in the cloakroom watching the CSPAN video."

Which is total horse pockey that wouldn't be tolerated by any judge worth his salt in any jury trial.  Imagine an ordinary juror in a criminal case whining to the judge that he can pay better attention outside watching a closed circuit TV screen than seated in the jury box.  The judge would issue a contempt warning on the spot, as Justice Roberts ought to have done once this imbecile's BS was made public.  But it shows the degree to which Roberts has allowed flouting of the rules to escape sanction.

The irony is that the whole process might have been truncated had the Reep Senators simply allowed witnesses as the Dems proposed, and also just voted Trump to be removed from office as the leprous, vile orange ape he is.

Of course, then Trump's base of losers would have ensured their senate reps be primaried. But at least then they'd no longer have to suffer the evident scourge of "boredom" in listening to complex oral presentations.

Here are some of the choice comments from NY Times readers about these losers:

"SENATORS: DO YOUR JOBS! Wake up or get a new job. You are now jurors in a sordid bribery case involving the most openly corrupt POTUS ever. " "The American people are watching. The world and our allies are watching. History is watching. This is not a game."

"Pathetic. Remember when you thought Senators were professional serious people who knew what their job was knew how to do their job and actually did serious work for the American public? It was fun to be a kid."

"For every minute a senator is not engrossed in listening, we should dock their salaries. Shameful. The fate of our nation, indeed our planet, lies in the hands of these people who have blinders on and refuse to face facts. I hope details of attendance and attentiveness is reported back to their constituents and each one vote they may cast should be reduced by fractions based on undivided attention."

"Undisciplined rule-breakers and cheaters. It's how they run their lives; it's how they "do their jobs." Throw the bums out. Make them get real jobs, where their employer is actually watching them, and holding them to account."

I personally am all in with the last two comments especially, in respect of: 1) docking their salaries for every minute they're not at their desks listening, and 2) engineering and pushing for the loss of  their seats to qualified  Dems - to at least make them look for real jobs. Since they clearly don't treat the Senate as such.

See also:

Impeachment | Republicans

Republican Senators Are Betraying Their Oaths and Embarrassing Themselves Before Our Eyes

Adam Schiff Delivers Performance Of A Lifetime - But It Mostly Fell On Closed Minds, Deaf Ears

Even as we learned Trump yesterday tweeted 142 times (141 of them outright lies)  we  got to see and hear the stirring words of Adam Schiff ringing loudly and clear in the Senate Chamber:

“You are left with no choice but to demand to hear from each witness with firsthand knowledge” of Trump’s pressure campaign, A fair trial requires nothing less.”

The historic trial, only the third of its kind in U.S.  risks devolving into a farcical Potemkin sham unless the 53 Republicans pull their collective heads out of their asses and attend to the case and the arguments presented by those like Schiff.   They ought to be reminded they are also on trial  - along with Trump - as history suffuses the chamber including the presence in the room of John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme court.

Just after 1pm, Adam Schiff stepped to a lectern between the tables to narrate the sordid story of Trump’s wrongdoing. Schiff and the other 6  House impeachment  managers laid out their case in stages, to powerful effect.  (At least for anyone of normal sentience - as opposed to the Repuke kool aid drinkers and Dotard asslickers like Lindsey Graham).  In meticulous detail they presented Trump’s corrupt scheme in narrative form, with a factual chronology and video of past witness testimony, to move thereafter to a description of the constitutional framework for impeachment.

But Schiff's presentation blew everyone away with its powerful combination of appeal to the Constitution, Senators' moral conscience and the future welfare of the nation.  At a break in the trial, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, called Schiff’s performance “a tour de force”.  He said:

“I think a good number of my Republican colleagues for the first time heard the argument against the president – powerfully, succinctly and completely– and I hope that can begin to change minds,” 

Both wifey and I concurred that Mr. Schiff delivered an argument for the ages, in clear, concise terms given he had to bring all the evidence to bear on Trump's extortion of the Ukrainian president and his subsequent obstruction. Hell, the orange, pus-filled maggot even bragged while still in Davos of his crime, keeping the materials hidden, e.g.

• Trump brags: ‘We have all the material, they don’t’                         

Polling released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center indicated public backing for the Democratic call for witnesses and found that 70% of respondents said Trump “definitely or probably acted unethically” while 51% said Trump “should be removed from office”.

“We’re trying this case over two juries,” Schiff said. “The Senate and the American people.”

But have any Republican Senators been moved to action?  Hardly!

“I didn’t hear anything new today,” said Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

 Errr... were you really conscious then, Toomey, or on an MJ candy high?

“I haven’t heard any evidence in there that the president’s done anything wrong,” said Josh Hawley of Missouri. 

Then you need to take remedial American Government classes again, Hawley, with emphasis on Article 1 of the Constitution.

Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska) then reportedly chafed at Jerry Nadler's remark that any Senator who refuses to allow witnesses is effectively assisting Trump in the "cover up".  Miffed at any such suggestion, Murkowski whined: "I am very offended!  I took it as very offensive since I am listening attentively and working hard to ensure a fair process."

Spare me the faux offense, Senator. If you are not prepared to allow witnesses - especially relevant ones to this supposed trial - then all you're doing is posturing for FOX News zombies.   And that also means, logically, you are assisting in Trump's obstruction!  Which also means collaborating in the cover up. (See news link above how he bragged about withholding materials.)

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham yelped about a "crusade" by the Dems to get his master, Dotard.  After seeing this dishonorable puke  cry, bark and barf,  one had to wonder if he was missing his latest Trump ass lick fix.  Or maybe he's on some kind of brain -frying junk, given he also congratulated Schiff on a "job well done".  Which is it, Lindsey?

With the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, having succeeded the night before in winning approval for a speedy trial, the House prosecutors have limited time in which to plant seeds of doubt in Republican minds about the conduct of the president.  But for realists, the odds of getting any such seeds planted are about the same as Tau Ceti aliens abducting Dotard before he leaves bellows another lie.

There is also the issue here of Mitch McConnell's "rules" which appear to have any force at all.  One often beheld the Senate Repukes visibly frustrated at the long hours of the trial, appearing at times to be on the verge of mild mutiny, openly flouting rules requiring them to remain at their desks and instead circulating in a cloakroom off the Senate floor. They drew no rebuke from Roberts.  My take? Roberts correctly saw the truth was gradually infiltrating their neurons risking about one trillion neural embolisms - so gave the Reeptards a break.

The seven House managers selected to present the articles of impeachment have about 16 remaining hours spread over two days to present their case to convict and remove Trump from office. Then the Dotard team has its opportunity to rebut the charges.   Translation:   Jay Sekulow and Co. will strain to see how many lies and concocted bullshit they can come up with (mainly using Russian tropes) to  appease their master, Dotard - and to hell with the Constitution and country.

Trump of course is not expected to appear at his own trial.  He bragged in Davos he'd like to come, but of course those are the empty words of a con man.  You take everything this twit says or tweets with less than a National Enquirer headline.

 Moderate Republican senators (e.g. Susan Collins, Murkowski, Cory Gardner, and Mitt Romney )  have made cooperative noises and also expressed discomfort with rushing the proceedings.  But this is likely all political posturing - especially for those up for re-election -  like the weasels Gardner and Collins.  Point:  none of the "moderates" voted with Democrats on several motions on Tuesday that would have cleared the way for new witnesses and testimony.  Clearly, Trump has their brains and spines locked up firmly in the remote recesses of his fat behind - never to see the clear light of day.

Winding up his oratory, Schiff warned that democracy was on the line. “Our future is not assured. A fair trial, with impartial consideration of all of the evidence against the president, is how we keep our republic.”

As Ben Franklin once told a woman who asked what kind of government we had: "A Republic, if you can keep it."    Right now it appears that owing to the cowardice of the Republicans, and their placing party over nation, we may not keep it - but lose it to an authoritarian Trumpocracy.

See also:

Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff: A True Hero for Our Times

And:

• Lindsey Graham goes into hiding just before Jerry Nadler calls him out—with receipts 

And

Impeachment | Mitch McConnell | Senate

Impeachment in Wonderland: First the Trial, Then the Evidence.

And:

Impeachment | Republicans

Republican Senators Are Betraying Their Oaths and Embarrassing Themselves Before Our Eyes

And:

Donald Trump

Trump Is Abusing His Power and Obstructing Congress Right Now While Impeachment Trial Continues

Right Wing Blogosphere Goes Nuts as Roberts Upholds Constitutionality of Health Care Law

"I have a message for Chief Justice Roberts! The power to tax is the power to destroy!" - Dean Clancy of Freedomworks

"It’s a terrible day for the American people! This was an activist court that rewrote the law to make it even more ineffectual, and even more expensive" Michelle Bachmann

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. " Rep. Rand Paul (TN)

“Chief Justice Roberts was the worst part of the Bush legacy,”   Ben Shapiro of Breitbart.com


I didn't blog earlier on the Supreme Court decisions to do with "Obamacare" (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)  because obviously there was vast confusion as to what it meant. The pundits as well as legal wizards were still scratching their heads and likely butts. CNN - to its everlasting shame- jumped the gun with the crawl screen: "Individual Mandate Struck Down" - which had the expected response of generating (initially) massive wet dreams for Rush Limbaugh's cheerleaders and Faux News followers.

But not so fast! As time went on a second decision became imminent, and in that key one Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the 4 liberals on the court asserting the individual mandate was: a) constitutional and b) passed muster based on the government's "tax authority:" In other words, if citizens opt not to purchase any insurance, they can certainly be hit with a tax penalty. (Though if I had my 'druthers I'd just increase taxes uniformly, by 5% to pay for the implementation, while also sunsetting the Bush tax cuts. )

Someone has to pay for the wider processing and acceptance, and if it doesn't happen by way of taxes it must unfold some other way. No, you can't make people actually purchase something they don't really want - at a particular time - but in the context of a law which hinges on shared income to achieve its assorted goals, you can resort to the paramount revenue generator which is TAXES!

A lot of this goes back to a subject on which I've blogged before: the American aversion to taxes, specifically any tax increases!

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/americans-need-to-get-over-their-tax.html

This is also irrational given that tax rates now are their lowest as a percentage of GDP in more than 40 years. But the problem is too many have been misled by anti-tax PR generated by the likes of Gasbag Grover Norquist and dozens of parroting Republican congress critters.

Worse, the party (Democrats)  that ought to be defending taxes as the means by which government can work for all typically punts rather than offering a full -throated defense. Worse, they even choose to side with the enemy on its memetic wicket, by promoting tax cuts (at least for the middle class - but two years ago they helped pass all the Bush tax cuts putting us in another $600 billion hole! )

This (Dem) party knows damned well the perilous impact of deficits on future social benefits, but rather than meet it head on, they yap about possible cuts to "entitlements" - the very thing which makes them merely Republicans Lite and drives people away from voting for them. Instead of simply opting to halt the Bush tax cuts (thereby saving $3.7 trillion over ten years), they emulate crack addicts who can't wait to get another "line" into their snouts - and pass all the tax cuts, instead of explaining to the middle class why it can't have BOTH tax cuts and future benefits.

What exactly is so damned difficult about that?

So, yes, what I liked most about the Roberts' Court decision is the way it stripped away all the subterfuge, crappola and camouflage....basically saying in so many words (in the 5-4 part where Roberts joined the court liberals): "Yes, look.... this law is constitutional but pay for it via revenues. Taxes. Not by forcing purchases. Penalize those who dodge insurance responsibility with taxes but maybe better, increase the tax load overall to pay for the benefits ALL Americans hope to obtain. Not only from this Health care overhaul but Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid too."

Indeed, that paraphrased take was reinforced in a secondary decision that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could not force states to raid already weakened budgets to pay for expanded Medicaid coverage as demanded under the law. (The penalty being that the federal matching Medicaid contribution would be withheld). In other words, the states didn't have to delve into their coffers (which are largely in the red thanks to the continued recessionary environment) to pay to add residents to the Medicaid rolls as demanded under the law.

The solution again? Increase federal taxes to pay for a larger population using Medicaid in the states.

The Roberts Court is basically telling both parties not to tapdance around the central issues, but to be honest and forthright. If people want any kind of benefit - whether health care, or to preserve future Social Security COLAs -   they had better be prepared to pay for it in some way. There's no free ride. You cannot have your cake and eat it!

The government has the power and authority to tax and now it better damned well use it - whether in launching another war (or occupation), expanding a social -medical benefit or paying for infrastructure repair.

Those who go against the proper use of government - which is underscored by the 'general welfare' clause in the Preamble to the Constitution?   Well some would use the term anti-taxers, "Groverites" or naysayers. I have a much simpler one: Domestic Security Traitors! If you recognize the extent to which taxes -enhanced revenue undergirds our domestic security yet choose to do nothing to shore it up, what else can you be?