• SpiceDealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Any of you remember Kitzmiller v. Dover? It was a case that essentially ruled that teaching ID/creationism was a theological doctrine and thus couldn’t be included in the biology curriculum of schools across the country. While the issues here at not the same (teaching creationsim vs mandatory bible studies), they have the same ideological underpinnings. Unless we’re talking about Sunday school*, schools must remain secular institutions where discussions of religions are from a neutral perspective in regards to the humanities. As to regards to a hypothetical Supreme Court case: considering how ultra-conservative the Supreme Court has become in recent years, I fear that they might side the theocrats.

    *Are those still a thing?

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sunday school is not a public institution, which is why it gets a pass. Similarly private schools are free to do this all week long.

      I think even this supreme Court would rule the correct way. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were even unanimous, but at worst I’d expect the 6/3 split with Thomas, Goraych, and Alito. There’s only so far they can go when the Constitution was very blatantly clear on this matter.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        And we should let it get a pass. Sunday School is the place to teach kids about the Bible. That’s what it’s for. That’s not what public school should be for. If parents want to indoctrinate their kids into religion, there’s no really effective way to stop it. But at least we can tamper it by keeping it out of our schools.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Agreed, and further to point out they even have private schools if they feel so compelled to indoctrinate every day of the week, we let them do that too and even allow them to claim equal credentials to a publicly regulated institution.

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Short of congress impeaching Supreme Court members (which they can do), it seems the only real answer is to just expand it so that it has so many seats, it is effectively as useless as congress.

      • Railing5132@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I wonder if the thinking is that once the proverbial seal on that lid is broken, the next administration would just Uno-reverse it by adding more of its preferred justices?

        And, it’s not like (aside from the first two damn years when it should have been done) they had a trifecta; although you could be assured Manchin or Senema(?) would have fucked them over.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Setting aside the fact that this would require a Senate majority, that’s not even the worst outcome.

          A broader spectrum of conservative judges means they need to triangulate across their generational and niche personal views. There is legit some amount of political space between Gorduch, Roberts, ACB, Judge Likes Beer, Uncle Thomas, and Discount Scalia.

          Adding three more of them to match three more liberal judges means even more dissonance.

          And who knows? Maybe we even start getting judges who didn’t fall directly out of the Harvard pipeline.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think the reason the Democrats haven’t tried to add members is the same reason that they didn’t mean to coin to handle the debt ceiling and they didn’t bother to either use or destroy the filibuster.

          Many entrenched Democrats in Washington are happy to be the second worst party. That’s their identity. And it makes sense if you consider their funding source. Big money comes from big companies, and they give it to people who will represent their interests.