All things SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US)

It creates a perverse incentive. Starve public schooling til only private are left, then fund then.

That is 100% the intention. Public teaching morale is at an all time low and the conservatives have managed to stretch the “liberal indoctrination” idea from colleges all the way down to kindergarten. They absolutely would love nothing more than to destroy public school once and for all.

Speaking of! Public students can now be lead in prayer by teachers thanks to today’s 6-3 ruling.
 
My suggestion, and it is a legal one regards to forum rules and the United States code, is the following.

Liberals should start a concerted campaign to encourage gun purchase and ownership in gerrymandered districts. Like, send volunteers there, hand out flyers. Subsidize lessons.

It's a little darker, but visible machete advocacy to get the same effect. Although, obviously make it explicitly tied to gerrymandering.

As far as I know, this is explicitly the second amendment's purpose according to current description by advocates
Why not hand out cheap actual guns?
Spoiler Cheap gun :
 
Why not hand out cheap actual guns?
Spoiler Cheap gun :

$$$, if done at sufficient scale.

And I don't know how "fund a patriot" would work, legally. Represented liberals could easily send guns to ones in qualifying districts, but dunno how the law works there.
 
$$$, if done at sufficient scale.

And I don't know how "fund a patriot" would work, legally. Represented liberals could easily send guns to ones in qualifying districts, but dunno how the law works there.
You see the things I link "had just 23 largely stamped and turned steel parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture", costing only $2.10 in 1942. They would be a lot cheaper than significantly subsidized lessons.
 
I'm, ah, kinda hesitant to choose cheap guns over lessons, tbh. But I'm paternalistic, I guess.

A mass machete campaign might work similarly to a cheap gun campaign
 
I am not really advocating that we should give out guns to everyone. I just thought it was the natural extension of your proposal.
 
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.
 
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.
In general, the victim has a lower burden of proof in civil court than the state does at a criminal trial. I say in general, because the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to protect cops by an overly-broad and overly lazy approach to sovereign immunity.
 
Spoiler Bunch of decisions and polls :

Of course Clarence Thomas would be the only one to side with Trump! :shake:

Interesting to see the only 9-0 ruling (raising of a Christian flag near city hall) included in the graph was one where the public disagreed with the ruling (perhaps reflective of the supreme court being more religious then the general population).

Don't think anyone has mentioned another very recent supreme court ruling which has made headlines. Honestly has the supreme court ever be so busy productive/controversial as it has been in the past 7 days or so!?

"A public US school was wrong to punish its football coach for praying at mid-field after his team's games, the Supreme Court has ruled."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61224856

To be honest based on recent rulings this one was not a surprise.
 
About 40 years ago, I worked in an office in England with a Muslim, a follower of Islam.

On Fridays, he would get out his prayer mat and pray there.

None of us thought that by doing that he was forcing his beliefs on us.
 
About 40 years ago, I worked in an office in England with a Muslim, a follower of Islam.

On Fridays, he would get out his prayer mat and pray there.

None of us thought that by doing that he was forcing his beliefs on us.
Yeah if the coach was leading students in prayer that's one thing praying while at school big whoop.

Here they can't really force you to pray at school but bible clubs are fine even with faculty involvement.

The teacher would get in trouble if they lead the class in prayer a prayer group at lunchtime or after school is fine.

I'm not religious either bit knock yourself out if you say a quick prayer here and there.
 
Top Bottom