- Sep 2024
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement?
Dissent: Again, very early on, but one of the main points in this case where it is clear that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has hesitations against the funding to the playground on Church property. With an unclear distinction of whether or not religious practices can take place on the playground, she seems to believe that if unable to prevent said practices, then the funding should not be given to the playground given the fact that they cannot prevent any sort of religious practice from taking place on the playground.
-
On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.
Dissent: While fairly early on, I think this really represent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs overall opinion of the case. She draws the line that the Framers didn't want tax money paying for building/maintaining things on Church property, and while it is a matter of the safety of the playground, it is also a matter of money going towards the maintenance of said playground which is on Church property.
-
- Justice John Roberts
- Attorney David Cortman, Petitioner
- Justice Anthony Kennedy
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor
- Justice Elena Kagan
- Justice Samuel Alito
- Justice Stephen Breyer
- Attorney James Layton, Respondent
- Justice Neil Gorsuch
-
Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?
Majority: This also seems like a point where Justice Stephen Breyer has made a key argument that if the Constitution does not permit the discrimination against religious organizations when it comes to public service and safety, then why should it permit the discrimination against a religious organization for public safety in a physical object, like a safer playground.
-
So suppose you -- we have the -- a school that's run by the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia. And then next to it we have a -- a Jesuit elementary and secondary school. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?
Majority: I feel that this is a key point for Justice Samuel Alito, he is countering the attorney's idea that the Missouri Constitution's laws would state a religious school could qualify, but not another religious organization, but in this case it is a school run by a religious organization, and implying that he believes it would be flawed to provide one funding and not the other.
-