Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue - (Supreme Court oral argument January 22, 2020)

I suppose their votes are their opinions, fair point. I happen to side with the majority in this case and stand by my original point of it being proof of a political agenda leaning right in the SCOTUS. Should they rule for Espinoza. The analogy of govt. dollars going to Planned Parenthood is a good one and illustrates the point well.

I donā€™t support that short of emergency treatement.

Do you support sanctuary cities?

Same with government money going to organizations that provide abortions. To me, money is fungible. The argument that ā€œthis money is used for other stuff, not abortionā€¦ā€ doesnā€™t fly with me.

Likewise ā€œthis money doesnā€™t go toward actual religious educationā€ is not a valid argument to me.

I absolutely DO want voucher money to be used at religious schools. (And before anyone asks, yes, that would go for use at a madras.) But I donā€™t like the attempts to compartmentalize how it gets used.

I do.

The issue is rife with lies and misrepresentations. Is some cases for example, it is simply ICE demanding that they hold prisoners beyond what they are legally required to do so. They are supposed to submit a warrant to hold the prisoner yet they insist on cities holding them without said warrant simply on an open ended request with no date for a pick up of the prisoner. That is wrong. If the law is clear and proper procedure is followed by federal agencies, which is NOT happening with any regularity, they should follow the law. Scream all you want to, but ICE is terrible at following their own regulations and laws.

That is no different than taxpayer money going to planned parenthood. I question if one can support one and not the other and remain consistent.

It would be the same if PP were a religion.

Then again, for some, it is. And abortion is the highest Sacrament.

The government is using tax payer money to support illegal aliensā€¦period.

I find abortion a terrible choice, very upsetting, but itā€™s not governmentā€™s place to butt in. They do not have the authority.

On thisā€¦we agreeā€¦until the government is asked to pay for it.

Just ignore the illegal demands ICE has made on local jails, okay.

1 Like

Admittedly it is one issue I struggle with.

You canā€™t have it both ways my friend. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of your stated position applying tax payer money.

Iā€™m having a ā€œme tooā€ moment. :sunglasses:

I think my points were valid. The ICE warrant issue is real.

I feel the same about rape. Only Iā€™m glad (and I suspect you are too) that government has outlawed it.

Itā€™s a tough one.

At the federal level?

Nevermind, editing to add;

Jurisdiction[edit]

In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to rape, as to other crimes. If the rape is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul, or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.

Two things:

(1) If you open your school to government funds, you open up yourself to oversight. Remember that.

(2) In Michigan, we have a constitutional amendment that prohibits public funds far ANY non-public schools. I donā€™t think striking down the Blaine amendment would remove this barrier because itā€™s not based on religion. It may be the way to go after this gets struck down (which I fully expect)