The Supreme Court: RIP Literally Everything

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1537819632492597248?cxt=HHwWgMC-tduzt9cqAAAA

https://twitter.com/metzgov/status/1537506624495308800?s=21&t=xspU636kgBVHGb2u_WXrhQ

What an asshole

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1539247666974150661?s=21&t=lJKZAJiSrGKL9LD-ZxFJOw

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 don’t have a public school district and it pays them money for private school, but not for religious school. 6-3 that’s unconstitutional and they have to pay for religious school.

I haven’t yet read the opinion, but is this obviously wrong? If a religious school meets the minimum state standards for education, shouldn’t they have access to state funding that other private schools have access to?

1 Like

Not if religious instruction is mandatory in the school. That’s 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, I’m going to revise my opinion. Breyer’s dissent is rambling and pretty weak, but I think the most compelling part relates to @CanadaMatt3004’s point. It’s not just the religious status of the school, it’s what education in that school entails.

Under Maine law, an “approved” private school must be “nonsectarian.” §2951(2). A school fails to meet that requirement (and is deemed “sectarian”) only if it is both (1) “‘associated with a particular faith or belief system’” and also (2) “‘promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the [academic] material taught through the lens of this faith.’”

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 schools’ religious character but because the schools will use the funds to teach and promote religious ideals.

So I think there’s a very fine line to be drawn here (that the majority didn’t draw): if the funding decision is simply based on the status of the entity–whether it’s a religious institution or not–then I think that would be inappropriately punitive and anti-religion. That’s the finding in the prior Trinity Lutheran case. But if it’s a restriction on what the funding would be used for, then it’s proper. [Yes, you then get into discussions of how money is fungible, blah blah blah.]

Sotomayor’s 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 there’s no public school available, and you’re getting a check from the state to cover some of your education costs as a result, what’s worse? The state money going to a religious school, or the state telling you that you can’t 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 don’t 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, it’s 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 shouldn’t happen and that’s 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.

Y’all 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?

https://twitter.com/Caulimovirus/status/1539271641607315456

The problem is that this is true and it’s also true that Federalist Society goons will use the edge case as evidence that’s 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.

I’m 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 didn’t actually read the decision, so I could be wrong about above. I’m sure I’ll get around to it at some point.