While the United states Armed Forces (private mercenaries) are in Afghanistan and the Philippines defending “all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world, “the supreme court, of the corporate United states, hands down Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, authorizing a limited form of vouchers for free-market public schools.

       In a dissenting opinion, David H. Souter, associate justice, points out,

       The applicability of the Establishment Clause [Article I of Amendment] to public funding of benefits to religious schools was settled in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, which inaugurated the modern era of [the] establishment doctrine: “No tax in any amount, large or small can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” … How can a Court consistently leave Everson on the books and approve the Ohio vouchers?  The answer is that it cannot.

       NOTE: Vouchers are claims on government tax monies that can be claimed by either free-market, or government-run, public schools in return for the attendance at a particular school.

       Prediction: The steady reliance upon vouchers by F-MPSs will be increasingly met with conditions and requirements that will cause them to become more and more like the G-RPSs.  The only solution to the current crisis in education is not just competition, but also to remove government involvement in education. —- TAC

       [restored 11/11/2023] Thanks to Marshall Fritz for his contributions to this entry.

       The supreme court hands down Independent School District No. 92 (of texas) v. Earls: it is lawful for school districts (government protected education monopolies) to require all students who participate in extra-curricular activities to submit to drug screening via urinalysis.

       NOTE: It makes no sense to screen students who participate in drug diversion programs such as music, clubs, or sports, as they are the ones who are least likely to abuse drugs in the first place. It is those at-risk students, who attend government-run public schools out of a sense of compulsion, who are the most likely candidates for drug abuse.

       [restored 11/11/2023]

       The supreme court hands down Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, allowing elected municipal judges to take stands on issues of the day—thus revealing their prejudices on certain cases and controversies.

       Question: If judges are allowed to have prejudiced views on an issue before a trial begins, why are jurors not allowed to nullify bad statutes (Jury Nullification)?

       NOTE: This decision reveals the utter absurdity of allowing judges to be “elected” by the people, rather than appointed by a County Grand Jury (preferably composed of also-ran candidates for municipal office).  In many states in order to even qualify for the ballot for judicial office, one most obtain the nomination signatures of a sufficient number of incumbent judges; this indicative of an exclusive, elitist oligarchy, as opposed to an inclusive, participatory democracy, within a limited republic.

       [added 11/11/2023] Thanks to Marshall Fritz for his contributions to this entry.