The Supreme Court on Thursday, in a 4-4 ruling, said Oklahoma cannot create the nation's first religious charter school funded directly with taxpayer dollars.
Not so sure.The article stated, the vote means the issue is not binding nationwide, and may be reconsidered again. I guess someone from a different state could file, as that seemed to be part of the ruling… INAL, so anyone who has better info, I’d love to hear from you.
It’s probably better than we could have reasonably hoped for with this court, but a 4/4 split that doesn’t create any nationwide precedent to enforce the super unambiguous “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” language in the first amendment is still pretty bad. We dodged a bullet but the gun is still loaded.
Because the Supreme Court divided evenly, its decision is not a binding precedent nationwide and sets the stage for the entire court to reconsider the issue in a future case, perhaps from another state.
i’m completely ignorant, so take this with a spoon of salt. but, i feel like the SC has found its legs lately. still not perfect, but that was never intended, but it looks like the product of a lot of long, long discussions. it looks like a good thing to me for now
I think they’re appearing more sensible lately since this administration is so batshit crazy. It’s one of the perks of lifetime terms with a high barrier for removal. They’re not beholden to any political party or branch and they’re free to rule as they see fit without fear of retribution, even the Trump appointees.
Rare Supreme Court W. Although I gotta admit I’ve been pleasantly surprised by this court lately.
Trump started attacking them. There are a lot of things, but the members of the SCOTUS are not stupid.
The more he ignores the Law the more he takes power from them.
Other than Congress, nobody wants to lose power.
Yeah. A lifetime appointment isn’t going to be useful if theirv decisions can just be ignored
Not so sure.The article stated, the vote means the issue is not binding nationwide, and may be reconsidered again. I guess someone from a different state could file, as that seemed to be part of the ruling… INAL, so anyone who has better info, I’d love to hear from you.
It’s probably better than we could have reasonably hoped for with this court, but a 4/4 split that doesn’t create any nationwide precedent to enforce the super unambiguous “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” language in the first amendment is still pretty bad. We dodged a bullet but the gun is still loaded.
i’m completely ignorant, so take this with a spoon of salt. but, i feel like the SC has found its legs lately. still not perfect, but that was never intended, but it looks like the product of a lot of long, long discussions. it looks like a good thing to me for now
(ed-sp)
I think they’re appearing more sensible lately since this administration is so batshit crazy. It’s one of the perks of lifetime terms with a high barrier for removal. They’re not beholden to any political party or branch and they’re free to rule as they see fit without fear of retribution, even the Trump appointees.
I’m not so sure about that.
i totally agree. interesting to see how far that guy has strayed from conservative ideology as shown in the highest court.