Taxes, Church Collision Splits Court

[Judi Lynn]

December 3, 2003

THE NATION
Taxes, Church Collision Splits Court
The justices debate whether public funds can pay for a student's clergy education.


By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, obviously divided, argued Tuesday over whether the Constitution sometimes requires the government to use tax money to help pay for the training of religious clergy, even when taxpayers oppose the idea.

It "is the plainest form of religious discrimination" to deny a state scholarship to a college student who is studying to become a minister, Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson, arguing for the Bush administration, said.

He was joined by Jay Alan Sekulow, a lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice, who argued the state "must not target religion for exclusion." They were speaking for Joshua Davey, a student who won a Washington state scholarship and chose to attend Northwest College in Kirkland, which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God. When Davey said he would major in theology and become a minister, state officials told him they were withdrawing the scholarship, because state law forbids public funding of religious instruction.

But it was clear Tuesday the justices knew the case of Locke vs. Davey was far larger than a dispute about a scholarship. (snip/...)

http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-na-theology3dec03,1,3799155.story?coll=la-headlines-business-invest

(Free registration required)

[Judi Lynn]

1. Boston Globe:Aid for religious studies eyed,Supreme Court mulls r

Aid for religious studies eyed
Supreme Court mulls requiring states to offer it
By Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent, 12/3/2003

WASHINGTON -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who holds a key vote in Supreme Court cases related to religion, expressed strong concern yesterday about forcing states to pay for religious studies when they provide scholarships or school vouchers.

O'Connor, who cast one of the deciding votes in the 5-4 ruling last year upholding government vouchers to pay tuition at parochial schools, reacted skeptically as the court explored whether the Constitution not only allows such aid, but actually requires it any time that private schools get public subsidies.

"The decision here could have very broad impact," she told a lawyer who urged the court to rule that states cannot single out religious studies as the only kind of instruction they would exclude from a scholarship or voucher plan.

With the other eight justices usually closely divided on cases involving relations between government and religion, O'Connor frequently casts the swing vote. It appeared that the other justices were divided again yesterday. (snip/...)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/12/03/aid_for_religious_studies_eyed/

[dbt]

2. No shit, O'Connor!

"The decision here could have very broad impact." Too bad you weren't thinking in these terms during bu$h v. Gore, huh?

Go ahead. Cast another "swing vote" and see how much worse you can fuck this country over!

:grr:
dbt

[politicat]

3. Okay, Sandy, darling.... what does it take? A Clue by four?

Allowing vouchers, as bad as they are, is technically voluntary.

Forcing the state to pay tuition is, according to the interpretation where a Check = speech is FORCING the state to endorse and support religion. Remember states' rights, your favorite fall-back position? This is the time, hon.

It will have a BROAD impact? You bet your sweet bippy it will.....

Once upon a time, I liked her.....

Too bad all she seems to want to do now is retire.

Politicat (who, for the record, thinks that churches should be entirely private, including their training facilities and thinks its far better for the churches to be so.)