-Caveat Lector- CobolMage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Reporting on today's action, AP writer Richard Carelli observed, > "Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and > Clarence Thomas have led the movement toward greater government > accommodation of religion." Less yielding have been Justices John > Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. > Breyer. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor have often > been considered "swing votes" in the high courts First Amendment > cases. <snip> I'm puzzled by this comment, especially its characterization of Scalia as favoring "greater government accommodation of religion." Read Scalia's opinion for the majority overturning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He was scathing in his attack on the ability of churches to resist government ukases. What Scalia, and to a lesser extent the rest of the reactionary caucus on the Court, favors is a steady reduction of the authority of the Federal government to intervene on the local level. The Court has consistently worked to shift the level at which decisions are made from the Federal level (and to some extent the local level) to state governments. Scalia trusts neither Washington nor the nation's City Halls. Why he chooses to trust the notoriously flaky judgment of state legislatures is beyond me, unless I assume that his distrust is actually racially motivated--state legislatures are overwhelmingly white and male throughout the country. On the basis of precedent, my guess is that the Court will validate school "choice," reasoning that the states know best what their citizens need (a flawed argument in itself). The whole thrust behind so-called school "choice" or vouchers is two-fold: first, to undermine the public schools, which are almost all unionized; and second, to keep as much self-determination out of the hands of racial minorities, who increasingly dominate big-city schools. [I realize that everything I've said is vastly oversimplified and generalized. Nevertheless, I stand by my comments.] Bob ================================= Robert F. Tatman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove "nospam" from the address to reply. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml POSTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTERNET DOES NOT IMPLY PERMISSION TO SEND UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL (SPAM) TO THIS OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ADDRESS. RECEIPT OF SPAM WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF THE SENDER'S ISP. ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
