This ruling was super-duper interesting, or I might be misunderstanding the summary. Like, an unMirandized confession could lead you to getting arrested, but if they then drop the charges, you cannot use the fact that you were arrested as 'damages'.
this seems crazy to me. i don't see a competent definition for "damages" whereby being arrested/locked up for a few days does not result in "damages". especially since being arrested sticks on a record and influences further employment/etc.
reminds me of the case where cops claimed they smelled alcohol, guy refused test, they took him to station and he blew flat 0s...and that wasn't enough for them to let him go. at that point, i'd have acquitted the man if he fought his way out of the station and survived, no matter what collateral that had to people trying to stop him. he'd simply be fleeing kidnapping, acting in self-defense. though in reality he'd be dead to police (and the state would likely not give us opportunity to convict them for murder), so it's not a thing people should try.
If he got any $$$ the state should hand it over to his victim.
when you are acquitted, you do not have a "victim" per the law. victim could try to sue for damages, if they could come up with the evidence differently.
He's actually not entirely wrong here, there is a discrimination against religion: The people aren't supposed to be required to pay for other people to exercise their religious beliefs.
there is no coherent basis to give private schools state funding, then selectively discriminate on the basis of religion. it's similar conceptually to paying for private schools, except those with black owners. not okay. probably, state should not be using taxpayer money for private schools in general. the problem is that public schools have bad incentive structures and usually suck.
the problem in this case is that the state isn't "making a law respecting the establishment of a religion". it's instead making a general program, and explicitly excluding particular religions.
I think private schools are one of the biggest causes of intergenerational inequality so the tax payer certainly should not be funding them, perhaps it should be criminalising them.
that last line one of the worst takes i've seen in at least a few days. public schools indoctrinate, sometimes to crazy degrees depending on who you ask. private schools tend to indoctrinate differently. home schooling often different from either.
i agree that public funding should not be going to private institutions in most cases. criminalizing what are often better-performing schools further dumpsters any incentive for public schools to perform, and that incentive is already close to nothing and is an abject infringement on basic rights. we already have alphabet agencies wasting time on monitoring parents who don't agree with public education w/o any basis for doing so, complete perversion of law. people need to have say in how their children are raised, and exceptions for that should not reasonably extend beyond prevention of abuse. i do not buy for a second that the state can possibly have better-aligned incentives to raise children than the child's parents, on average. exceptions exist, but they are exceptions for a reason.