Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[joecct]

Replace church with Planned Parenthood. Somehow it's ok to deny them otherwise general use funds because they engage in a constitutionally protected activity.

At one time Congress denied funds to tobacco growers.

Since Congress controls the purse strings they can do pretty much anything they can get away with.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Replace church with Planned Parenthood. Somehow it's ok to deny them otherwise general use funds because they engage in a constitutionally protected activity.

I don't agree with defunding PP, but it's not the same thing. You're denying the playground money on the basis of religion. You are not denying PP funding on the basis of any protected class.

I probably didn't word this correctly.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Yeah, I don't think you did. Because we deny all sorts of stuff on the basis of religion.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

PP is being denied funding explicitly because of religious beliefs.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

PP is being denied funding explicitly because of religious beliefs.

While the vast majority of Pro-Lifers are religious, there are atheists that are Pro-Life, just as there are religious people who are Pro-Choice. So, it is not exclusively a religious belief.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

While the vast majority of Pro-Lifers are religious, there are atheists that are Pro-Life, just as there are religious people who are Pro-Choice. So, it is not exclusively a religious belief.

That's irrelevant. The vast majority are religious and that's why it's getting defunded. The only reason abortion isn't illegal is because of the Supreme Court. The same reason Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage aren't illegal.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I guess the biggest issue I have is where do you begin to draw the line then?

which is why I would expect a narrowly-tailored ruling, along the lines of "if this is a public program open to all applicants for a purely secular purpose."

The public money is being given for safer playgrounds for kids. It is not in any way promoting any religion. Denying the money on the basis that it is a religious institution is unconstitutional.

I somewhat expect Kagan to ask to write the opinion: she seems fairly adept at the linguistic precision that will be needed to thread the needle. The state cannot deny funds to make a playground safer merely because it is on property owned by a religious organization.

She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Replace church with Planned Parenthood. Somehow it's ok to deny them otherwise general use funds because they engage in a constitutionally protected activity.

That is not a problem as long as they are not picking and choosing, right? they are not only defunding Planned [non]Parenthood, they are across the board not funding any organization that provides abortions under the Hyde Amendment, no?

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected activity but you don't see "otherwise general use funds" being applied to promote gun ownership. There are plenty of constitutionally protected activities that are not funded by the federal government.

[unofan]

which is why I would expect a narrowly-tailored ruling, along the lines of "if this is a public program open to all applicants for a purely secular purpose."



I somewhat expect Kagan to ask to write the opinion: she seems fairly adept at the linguistic precision that will be needed to thread the needle. The state cannot deny funds to make a playground safer merely because it is on property owned by a religious organization.

She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.

You think Roberts will pass this one onto Kagan? I doubt it. Never say never, but they held this case until Gorsuch was confirmed because they wanted a clear conservative majority. They're not going to give it to Kagan to write a narrow opinion when they now have the votes to write an expansive one.

Put another way, it would have been argued last year if they were ok with a Kagan opinion.

[unofan]

That is not a problem as long as they are not picking and choosing, right?

Of course they are. Why do you think they talk about "repealing funding for Planned Parenthood," and not "repealing funding for abortion providers." We're not talking about the Hyde Amendment, we're talking about taking away Title VII and Medicaid funds that go to PP as reimbursement for their non abortion activities.

The states are getting away with defunding PP by foregoing all federal family planning funds to stop paying PP, essentially cutting of their noses to spite their faces. But similar federal legislation is proposed all the time.

Do try to keep up.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.

You're still giving public money to a religious entity. If it's to give them a seesaw then they can take the money they'd have spent for the seesaw and spend it on Jesus Rides a Dinosaur geology textbooks.

But again it comes down to this: is BFE Oklahoma going to give public money to the local mosque? Oh, I really want to be the public official who defends that at the town hall.

[joecct]

You're still giving public money to a religious entity. If it's to give them a seesaw then they can take the money they'd have spent for the seesaw and spend it on Jesus Rides a Dinosaur geology textbooks.

But again it comes down to this: is BFE Oklahoma going to give public money to the local mosque? Oh, I really want to be the public official who defends that at the town hall.

Remember, Maryland took the casino money, gave it to the schools, and took the money that had previously had gone to the schools and gave it to their favorite contractors.

I don't want any public money going to any religious institution. Soon the institution compromises its principles to keep the money flowing.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Remember, Maryland took the casino money, gave it to the schools, and took the money that had previously had gone to the schools and gave it to their favorite contractors.

Oh, I quite agree that was garbage, and as far as I know every state that has gambling does it. IINM it was in OR where one of the referenda was that any gambling revenue would be segregated from the general fund so they couldn't play that shell game. The state leg threw a fit.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

You think Roberts will pass this one onto Kagan?

um, what I actually wrote was that "Kagan would ask to write the opinion."

[unofan]

um, what I actually wrote was that "Kagan would ask to write the opinion."

That's not how it works.

Edit: Just in case you're being sincere for once, the senior justice in the majority assigns who will write the opinion, and the Chief is always most senior. There is consideration given to balancing the workload by sitting (so each justice will write only one or two majority opinions per month, which is how you can guess authors towards the end), but other than that, no one "asks" to write a specific opinion.

A majority opinion can be lost if votes switch (Obamacare when Roberts switched sides) or a concurrence gets more votes (violent video games - Alito's concurrence reads like it was originally a majority opinion, and my guess is Scalia stole it when he got four votes to sign on to his more strident defense of the first amendment that was originally to be a concurrence).

Further edit: and as for why I think you're not being sincere, the Court held this over because it wants to open the door to private school funding. You don't sit on a case for over a year, waiting for a tiebreaking vote to be seated, if you don't think you'll need it.