Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Schools Matter: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

First published on Schools Matter on January 21, 2020

“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.



Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Brief musing on Scalia

In February, my Civil Procedure Professor sent our class a short exchange between him and another lawyer regarding the death of Antonin Scalia. They were both refreshing critical of the arch-reactionary Supreme Court Justice. I weighed in with my thoughts as well. They are reproduced here.


I'm not one to mince words when it comes to our reactionary ruling class, and tweeted this on Saturday after a friend texted me the good news.

But discussions of individual members of the court, and their possible replacements, only consign us to what Professor Noam Chomsky refers to as "narrow confines of discourse." A more Freireian approach would be to ask why the Supreme Court exists and why do we allow this small group of individuals make decisions that effect each and every one of us so profoundly? Dr. Rob Hunter does precisely this in an amazing Jacobin essay The Supreme Court After Scalia, where he posits that collective struggle is far more important.

I strongly recommend the essay, and want to leave you with the following excerpt, that which I believe sums the entire issue.

“The Supreme Court is a bulwark of reaction. Its brief is to maintain the institutional boundaries drawn by the Constitution, a document conceived out of fear of majoritarian democracy and written by members of a ruling class acting in brazen self-interest.”

The Supreme Court is a bulwark of reaction. Its brief is to maintain the institutional boundaries drawn by the Constitution, a document conceived out of fear of majoritarian democracy and written by members of a ruling class acting in brazen self-interest.



Share/Bookmark