SC decision backs vouchers

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:10:56 -0600, K C wrote
(in message ):

> In the recent Supreme Court decision against Davey, the court gave
> wording that indicates it supports giving funds to religious schools
> for vouchers.
>
> Here is the wording from the summary of the majority position...
>
> "Moreover, the entirety of the Promise Scholarship Program goes a long
> way toward including religion in its benefits, since it permits
> students to attend pervasively religious schools so long as they are
> accredited, and stu-dents are still eligible to take devotional
> theology courses under the program's current guidelines. Nothing in
> the Washington Constitu-tion's history or text or in the program's
> operation suggests animus towards religion."
>
> Thus, the Supreme Court would not have a problem with the state giving
> funds to schools that were clearly religious, NOR would it have a
> problem with those in the state program taking religious courses, ONLY
> using those courses for vocational purposes.


My goodness, gracious me; you seem to have left out the concluding coupla
paragraphs. Let's see if we can't use our Ouiji Board to make them appear.
Ay, yes; the letters are coming in:
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-
1315>

Let's go back one sentence as it is always just /so/ difficult to bridger
legal works:

--------------------------------------------------------

Nothing in the Washington Constitution's history or text or in the program's
operation suggests animus towards religion. Given the historic and
substantial state interest at issue, it cannot be concluded that the denial
of funding for vocational religious instruction alone is inherently
constitutionally suspect. Without a presumption of unconstitutionality,
Davey's claim must fail. The State's interest in not funding the pursuit of
devotional degrees is substantial, and the exclusion of such funding places a
relatively minor burden on Promise Scholars. If any room exists between the
two Religion Clauses, it must be here. Pp. 4-12.

299 F. 3d 748, reversed.

     Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------

Heck, might as well copy'n'paste the whole thing.

Next message.



Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
I hope it's not too durned long.
 >> Stay informed about: SC decision backs vouchers