Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority.
Associated Press:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that said the state ruling violates the religious freedom of parents who want the scholarships to help pay for their children’s private education. “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,” Roberts wrote.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayer seemed to invoke a strict constructionist view.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the high-court ruling “is perverse. Without any need or power to do so, the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.”
If it’s not in the Constitution, it doesn’t need adjudicating? One would hope Sotomayer and the other liberals on the court would take that notion to heart.
Naturally, conservative activists are overjoyed at the decision.
Advocates for allowing state money to be used in private schooling said the court recognized in its decision that parents should not be penalized for sending their children to schools that are a better fit than the public schools.
“This opinion will pave the way for more states to pass school choice programs that allow parents to choose a school that best meets their child’s individual needs, regardless of whether those schools are religious or nonreligious,” said Erika Smith, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the parents in their court fight.
“School choice” means school vouchers and that doesn’t sit well with the teachers and their powerful unions.
But the president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which counts more than 12,000 teachers and other school workers as union members, called the decision “a slap in the face” to its members and the communities they serve.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority.
Associated Press:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that said the state ruling violates the religious freedom of parents who want the scholarships to help pay for their children’s private education. “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,” Roberts wrote.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayer seemed to invoke a strict constructionist view.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the high-court ruling “is perverse. Without any need or power to do so, the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.”
If it’s not in the Constitution, it doesn’t need adjudicating? One would hope Sotomayer and the other liberals on the court would take that notion to heart.
Naturally, conservative activists are overjoyed at the decision.
Advocates for allowing state money to be used in private schooling said the court recognized in its decision that parents should not be penalized for sending their children to schools that are a better fit than the public schools.
“This opinion will pave the way for more states to pass school choice programs that allow parents to choose a school that best meets their child’s individual needs, regardless of whether those schools are religious or nonreligious,” said Erika Smith, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the parents in their court fight.
“School choice” means school vouchers and that doesn’t sit well with the teachers and their powerful unions.
But the president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which counts more than 12,000 teachers and other school workers as union members, called the decision “a slap in the face” to its members and the communities they serve.
Yessssss
Judge Roberts is like hot and cold