https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1537819632492597248?cxt=HHwWgMC-tduzt9cqAAAA
They dropped a ruling that Maine has to send taxpayer money to Christian schools. RIP separation of church and state.
Maine apparently has some rural constituents that donât have a public school district and it pays them money for private school, but not for religious school. 6-3 thatâs unconstitutional and they have to pay for religious school.
I havenât yet read the opinion, but is this obviously wrong? If a religious school meets the minimum state standards for education, shouldnât they have access to state funding that other private schools have access to?
1 Like
Not if religious instruction is mandatory in the school. Thatâs state sponsored religion.
5 years from now there will be absolutely no separation of church and state. That is target number one for SCOTUS.
Upon reading it, Iâm going to revise my opinion. Breyerâs dissent is rambling and pretty weak, but I think the most compelling part relates to @CanadaMatt3004âs point. Itâs not just the religious status of the school, itâs what education in that school entails.
Under Maine law, an âapprovedâ private school must be ânonsectarian.â §2951(2). A school fails to meet that requirement (and is deemed âsectarianâ) only if it is both (1) ââassociated with a particular faith or belief systemââ and also (2) ââpromotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the [academic] material taught through the lens of this faith.ââ
The clearest expression of why this should have gone the other way is this statement, buried in his rambling:
Maine thus excludes schools from its tuition program not because of the schoolsâ religious character but because the schools will use the funds to teach and promote religious ideals.
So I think thereâs a very fine line to be drawn here (that the majority didnât draw): if the funding decision is simply based on the status of the entityâwhether itâs a religious institution or notâthen I think that would be inappropriately punitive and anti-religion. Thatâs the finding in the prior Trinity Lutheran case. But if itâs a restriction on what the funding would be used for, then itâs proper. [Yes, you then get into discussions of how money is fungible, blah blah blah.]
Sotomayorâs dissent is better.
1 Like
The US should be like Canada when it comes to funding religious education.
My only hang up is that if thereâs no public school available, and youâre getting a check from the state to cover some of your education costs as a result, whatâs worse? The state money going to a religious school, or the state telling you that you canât send your kid to a religious school and get the money? In either case, your kid is going to a private school.
The part of that excerpt that I found most important was that they are teaching academic material through the lens of that faith. So some of their science courses are going to be significantly different, for example. The state definitely has an interest IMO in making sure that kids are given a proper education in the core materials.
The state money going to a religious school.
1 Like
I donât think this is a super simple thing and I think there are probably a lot of specific cases where that outcome would be super frustrating for parents. If these are rural areas, itâs possible someone lives 5 minutes from a religious school and 45 minutes from the next closest school of any kind. At that point even if they prefer a non-religious education for their kids, the logistics alone might be an issue. I mean, I doubt they have a school bus available for the 45 minute commute.
That shouldnât happen and thatâs where any money should go.
4 Likes
I agree in theory, but in a rural state it seems reasonable that there can be edge cases.
If there is sufficient demand for a religious school then there should also be a public school.
Yâall missed the most fucked up ruling of this release.
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539247357816184839
Basically insurers are required to cover stuff for End Stage Renal Disease patients (ESRD) as they would for other things. This is usually dialysis.
How do we get around that?
The problem is that this is true and itâs also true that Federalist Society goons will use the edge case as evidence thatâs OK to overturn the whole principle idea the next time the principle idea that they want to overturn comes up.
1 Like
The days of the mega payments to davita or other dialysis centers are long, long gone. People with medicare will also frequently have private insurance on top of it.
Just look to see who is in the majority.
Iâm also having a hard time getting rustled about this SC dialysis decision.
This seems like the inevitable conclusion of how Medicare is set up. If Medicare covers everyone with end stage renal disease (regardless of age), then of course insurers are going to take advantage of that.
This seems like something that could be addressed by congress if there was a desire to do so. The existing law is (as dissenters note) highly exploitable.
Also seems like everyone with ESRD will still get dialysis will still get it, but cost can get shifted to Medicare, but I doubt if anyone with ESRD really gives a shit that the end result of the law is that they still get dialysis, but more tax dollars are spent.
It is not even clear to me that people without ESRD who need dialysis for a short period of time would be affected. It sounds like the ruling means that the dialysis provider just has to take the shitty reimbursement that the insurer is willing to give and they still get their dialysis too.
Only people who get fucked are dialysis providers. Not sure how rustled I should be about that. I suppose that could have some secondary effects that reduce access to dialysis. Maybe.
I didnât actually read the decision, so I could be wrong about above. Iâm sure Iâll get around to it at some point.