In terms of the First Amendment the liberal media care only about that fraction and any others they feel they can misuse to limit conservatives. Anything outside their view is considered to be an attack. Thus their disdain for religious liberty was on full display during Tuesday’s CNN NewsroomAfter the Supreme Court decided 6-3 to support religious freedom and against discrimination by the state of religious schools,
On Tuesday’s latest set of court decisions, the conservative majority decided in Carson v. Makin that the State of Maine could not bar parents from using the state’s tuition assistance program to send their kids to religious schools.
Of course, this sent CNN into a tailspin as justice correspondent Jessica Schneider fretted, “this goes along the trend of what we’ve been seeing from this conservative majority to bolster religious rights and decide cases on the side of religious liberties.”
She went on to huff how “We saw it back in 2017 when the court there said that states could not exclude church playgrounds from any state funding that they gave to resurface all playgrounds.”
Poppy Harlow, Jim Sciutto and Jeff Toobin were the first to seek out insights from Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s chief legal analyst. Toobin is a masturbation expert.
Toobin was the First Person to Bring Up the First Amendment. Toobin suggested that the ruling implied Congress had set up a religion, and so violated Constitution.
This is part of another major trend. The larger question is: Can the government finance religious schools? What about schools openly practicing religion?
(…)
There is the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which states that Congress can not establish religion. The court has ruled that if money is being sent to religious institutions (including schools), it is against the establishment clause.
“That idea is breaking down under the conservative majority,” Toobin decried. “It is a conflict between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. And under this conservative majority, the free exercise clause is winning case after case.”
Essentially what CNN is arguing here is that it’s fine for a government to exclude or discriminate against religious institutions from programs that are generally open to groups that perform similar functions based on their religious beliefs.
Sciutto showed an understanding of the matter and looked at Jennifer Rodgers, a former prosecutor. She suggested that the ruling might have been in violation. “a separation between church and state here.”
Rodger provided the solution he needed and recited Toobin’s words. “I mean, the old saw of a separation between church and state, which is based on the establishment clause, is breaking down,”She was very clear.
Her warped views continued, including the view that recognition and protection for religious liberty somehow was causing the First Amendment to be rewritten.
We’re really seeing that it’s not going to be there the more and more This court weakens the Establishment Clause by allowing religious freedom to be expressed.The free exercise clause is above and beyond the idea of an establishment clause. That’s it.
As in all cases in court, this one is also interesting. The clash of free speech, freedom religion, free exercise, and other First Amendment rights. Again, the court elevates religious aspects of First Amendment above all others like free speech.
“So, it is all breaking down,” she reiterated. “I mean, we see where they’re going. It’s not surprising. It was no surprise that this result came about. It was no surprise that the split occurred. And we’ll just have to see how much more eroded it gets in the years to come.”
And in the time they had before they went to a commercial, Toobin unilaterally took control of the floor and went on a rant spewing talking points peddled by corrupt teachers’ unions.
Coming out against funding students over systems, Toobin griped about “the conservative movement in this country … is advocating a complete voucher system for public education in this country… That would be, many public school advocates say, a death sentence to public schools in this country because they would lose a lot of the financial support they have now.”
Jeffrey would be proud of public schools, so why should they fear losing funding? Do you prefer private schools like the one that you attended, to be exclusive to wealthy people?
Amazon and ADT have sponsored Amazon to help make it possible for religious freedom to be rejected. You can find their contact information here.
Below is the transcript. Click “expand to read:
CNN Newsroom
June 21, 2022
Eastern 10:35:46(…)
JESSICA SCHEIDER: Yes. Because about half of Maine’s school district are simply too small to support a public school, this case was brought up. Maine offers tuition assistance through vouchers that allow students to go to private schools.
So the question became, “Can Maine exclude certain religious school?” The court here ruled in a 3-1 opinion by John Roberts that Maine could not exclude religious schools tuition reimbursement programs. It also cited the violation of the free exercise clause. The clause prevents states from making discriminatory acts based upon religion.
Maine had many parents who raised this concern, alleging that they would like to send their child to a religious school, but the tuition assistance program was not available. It was argued that it violated Constitution. Today, there is a conservative majority of 6-3 who agree with them.
Maine must now restructure their tuition aid program in order to offer this assistance to all Maine students. Other states have similar programs. They will be affected, in all likelihood, by the Supreme Court decision.
This is in line with what Jim and Poppy have been seeing, a conservative majority deciding cases that favor religious liberty and boosting religious rights. It was last term when they decided in favor of the Catholic foster agency refusing to accept same-sex parents. The court ruled that no state could exclude churches from funding for resurfacing playgrounds.
It is the latest trend. This win is for Maine parents who felt that their kids should receive tuition reimbursement. The parents also suggested that it be extended to religious students.
This is what we witnessed at oral arguments. Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative justice said that they simply want equal treatment in order to be able to go to the same schools as other students. The case was now decided in favor the parents of students who believed that they should receive tuition reimbursement.
POPPY HIGH: Now, let’s invite Jeffrey Toobin (CNN chief legal analyst) and Jennifer Rodgers (ex-federal prosecutor).
Jeffrey agreed with Jessica. It has been coming. These things have been coming. It was the chief justice, Roberts, who, in 2017, wrote that opinion in Trinity Lutheran and said, ‘no, you can’t exclude religious schools from a grant to resurface playgrounds.’ But he left for another day – and I guess that day is today – this bigger decision. How does this affect the country?
JEFFREYTOOBIN – This, too, is part and parcel of a growing trend. But the bigger issue is: Can the government afford religious schools? Are taxpayer funds allowed to go towards schools openly committed to religion?
We now have parochial schools and children under the free exercise clause. Parents can also educate their children under any type of religion — whatever they choose. The First Amendment also contains the Establishment Clause. This clause states that the Congress can’t establish any religion. The court has ruled that if money is being sent to religious institutions (including schools), it is against the establishment clause.
This idea is being shattered by the conservative majority. It is possible to fund textbooks or playgrounds. Now, scholarships are available.
The conflict is between the establishment clause, and the free exercise. This conservative majority is proving to be the most effective in every case.
JIM SCIUTO: Jennifer Rodgers. These have obvious constitutional legal implications. And this court — there are a lot of cases going to come its way under that umbrella – it also has practical implications because it gets to funding of public schools. Right? But is that true?
The bigger issue: For laymen at home, those who believe there is a separation of state and church here — that may be a simplification but what does that mean for how the court views that division?
JENNIFER RODGERS – Jeffrey is absolutely right. The establishment clause is being eroded, so the traditional notion of church-state separation is falling apart. We’re really seeing that it’s not going to be there the more and more this court erodes the establishment clause by elevating freedom of religious expression, the free exercise clause, above the notion of the establishment clause. We have this here.
Another thing to note in this case is, like in many other cases, the conflict between freedom speech, religion and free exercise, among other First Amendment rights. Again, the court elevates religious aspects of First Amendment rights above all others like free speech.
All of it is falling apart. They’re heading in the right direction, I think. It’s not surprising. It was no surprise that this result came about. It was no surprise that the split occurred. We’ll have to wait to see how it erodes over the next few years.
TOOBIN: I’d like to briefly discuss where we are heading. This is not a secret. The conservative movement is pushing for — or advocating, a total voucher system in America’s public education. This means that every American student would receive a set amount. That money could be used to attend a public school, or it could go to parochial schools. The funding for parochial schools would almost be 100%.
This would, according to many advocates for public school, be a fatal blow to the country’s public schools as it would result in them losing a large amount of financial support. However, that is the larger issue that will be impacted by the decision made today.
SCIUTTO: It’s a big point. It is an important point. It’s a major — potential major policy change there.
About Post Author
