Friday, February 27, 2004
Supreme Court Is Wrong Again
Joshua Davey applied for a Washington State scholarship so that he could pursue his intended major of theology at a college affiliated with the Assemblies of God. The State denied his request based upon his field of study. The Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 vote on Wednesday sided with Washington State's decision.
At issue here are Blaine amendments contained in 37 state constitutions. Named after Senator James Blaine, who was an ardent anti-catholic living in the late 1800, these Amendments prohibit expenditures of public money that aid or support sectarian schools. School choice advocates were watching this Supreme Court case closely because the failure to strike down Blaine Amendments would make it more difficult to extend private school vouchers to religious institutions.
Over a year ago this same Court found in the Zelman decision that a voucher program in Cleveland providing money to families who send their kids to catholic schools does not violate the Constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion (separation of church and state). The 5 to 4 majority agreed with the libertarian position that because the funds are awarded to the student vouchers do not represent direct support of a particular religion, a situation similar to the government's providing Pell Grants so that a recipient can attend a religiously-affiliated institution such as Georgetown University or Notre Dome.
But now the Supreme Court has abandoned all consistency with it ruling in Locke v. Davey. It appears the Court is stating that its fine for students to use public funds to attend religious schools, just so long as you don't study the subject they were created to advance. Justice Scalia's dissent put it best when he said, "Let there be no doubt. This case is about discrimination against a religious minority." The judge sarcastically added, "What's next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense."
By the way, as Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times reports, Mr, Davey completed his college education and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a freshman at Harvard Law school.
PermaLink | 6:21 AM |
|
At issue here are Blaine amendments contained in 37 state constitutions. Named after Senator James Blaine, who was an ardent anti-catholic living in the late 1800, these Amendments prohibit expenditures of public money that aid or support sectarian schools. School choice advocates were watching this Supreme Court case closely because the failure to strike down Blaine Amendments would make it more difficult to extend private school vouchers to religious institutions.
Over a year ago this same Court found in the Zelman decision that a voucher program in Cleveland providing money to families who send their kids to catholic schools does not violate the Constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion (separation of church and state). The 5 to 4 majority agreed with the libertarian position that because the funds are awarded to the student vouchers do not represent direct support of a particular religion, a situation similar to the government's providing Pell Grants so that a recipient can attend a religiously-affiliated institution such as Georgetown University or Notre Dome.
But now the Supreme Court has abandoned all consistency with it ruling in Locke v. Davey. It appears the Court is stating that its fine for students to use public funds to attend religious schools, just so long as you don't study the subject they were created to advance. Justice Scalia's dissent put it best when he said, "Let there be no doubt. This case is about discrimination against a religious minority." The judge sarcastically added, "What's next? Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense."
By the way, as Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times reports, Mr, Davey completed his college education and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a freshman at Harvard Law school.
PermaLink | 6:21 AM |
| 
