The Supreme Court AGAIN Tells Trump NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPORTATIONS

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

“In the long run, charter schools are being strategically used to pave the way for vouchers. The voucher advocates, who are very powerful and funded by right-wing foundations and families, recognize that the word voucher has been successfully discredited by enlightened Americans who believe in the public sector. So they’ve resorted to two strategies. First, they no longer use the word “vouchers.” They’ve adopted the seemingly benign phrase “school choice,” but they are still voucher advocates.” — Jonathan Kozol

The end goal of school privatization projects like charter schools has always been vouchers. While both charters and vouchers prevent the public from being able to control the curriculum taught with public dollars, vouchers are far worse in that regard. Vouchers represent an attack on democratic institutions and they represent an attack on rationality in general. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a case about to be heard in front of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), could open the flood gates to scare community tax dollars being squandered on dominionist curricula and schools that can openly discriminate.

Vouchers mean Jeanne Allen's dream of teaching children that Jesus rode dinosaurs will finally come true
image by Monty Propps https://b3ta.com/board/7293522

With a SCOTUS populated by arch-reactionaries like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, it's highly likely that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment will either be ignored or explained away in order to justify funding extremist religious organizations. You know Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue represents a major threat to public education when charter-voucher promoting organizations like the Center for Education Reform file an amicus brief in favor of the right-wing plaintiff. Reactionaries Jeanne Allen and Paul Clement also got a piece published in Time in favor of using public funds to teach religious extremism.

SCOTUS Upholds U of Texas Admissions Policy

Sanity takes a deep breath today:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of affirmative action a major victory.

The vote was 4-3. Only seven justices participated in the decision, as Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains vacant.

Scalia Thinks Blacks Should Be in "Slower Track" Schools

From HuffPo:

WASHINGTON -- Do black students matter to Justice Antonin Scalia?

During oral arguments on Wednesday in Fisher v. University of Texas, a contentious affirmative action case, the conservative justice seemed to call their abilities into question.

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well," Scalia said, "as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."

Scalia was engaging former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who is now representing the University of Texas at Austin as the school defends its ongoing consideration of race as one of many factors in its admissions program.

Pointing to a brief the court received before oral arguments, Scalia noted "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

Garre tried to interject, but the justice continued. "They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that ... they're being pushed ahead­­ in classes that are too fast for them," Scalia said.

Again, Garre tried to respond as Scalia added that he was "just not impressed" by arguments that UT Austin suffers from lower minority enrollment. "I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," the justice said. . . .

SCOTUS Declares, Democracy Be Damned

Posted at HuffPo:




And check out this commentary on NPR's Marketwatch:

JUSTIN FOX: Economist Milton Friedman once wrote that an individual has lots of responsibilities: responsibilities to family, to conscience, to charity, to church, to country. A business, he said, was different. It's one and only responsibility was "to engage in activities designed to increase its profits, so long as it stays within the rules of the game."

Friedman's point was that CEOs should not go around imposing their notions of social responsibility on corporations owned by many shareholders. Since the only interest that could possibly unite all those shareholders was making a profit, that was what executives should focus on during their working hours.

Think about this in the context of the Supreme Court's decision last week. In a landmark ruling, the court struck down long-standing restrictions on political spending by corporations.

The ideal corporation Friedman described is out to do nothing but make as much money as it can, "within the rules of the game." It is supposed to behave in a supremely selfish and single-minded fashion. An individual who acted like that would be considered really unpleasant, maybe even psychopathic. The Supreme Court's decision frees corporations to play a potentially decisive role in shaping the "rules of the game," rules that they have to obey. It's a little like putting inmates in control of the asylum.

It's true, corporations are made up of individuals. That makes it hard to draw a line between what corporations do and what their individual employees do. It is even harder to draw a line between free speech and outright political activity. The Supreme Court majority cited this as the main justification for its decision.

But equating corporate rights with individual rights, as the Court did, just doesn't smell right. If corporations are individuals, they are individuals with some pretty serious mental and emotional problems. You'd think any self-respecting judge would want to declare them incompetent.