With justice Barrett recusal court

[Prairie_Seagull]

rules 4-4 on Oklahoma religious charter school ruling.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether to approve the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school on Thursday, leaving intact a lower ruling that voided the Oklahoma school’s contract.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court,” the court wrote in its one-sentence, unsigned opinion.

Only eight justices sat for the case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5313724-divided-supreme-court-affirms-ruling-rejecting-public-religious-charter-school-in-oklahoma/

[Scrivener7]

1. I'm pleasantly surprised that she recused.

[underpants]

2. No explanation

A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the charter school.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-sidesteps-major-ruling-religious-public-charter-schools-rcna204111

[BOSSHOG]

3. Publicly funded religious school in the United States

Should not have gotten to Supreme Court. It is abhorrent to democracy. First year law students would have unanimously rejected. Freedom hating garbage on the Supreme Court.

Do away with separation of church and state. Turn loose the assessors.

[UpInArms]

4. Who was the fourth vote?

The article does not say

ETA

The one-page decision did not say how each justice voted. During oral arguments last month, most of the court's conservatives indicated support for the school while liberals expressed concern. At least one conservative is likely to have sided with the liberals, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts.

From this link

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-sidesteps-major-ruling-religious-public-charter-schools-rcna204111

[Prairie_Seagull]

5. I heard point made that this 'ruling'

could be re-adjudicated in the SC in the future. Assuming the right sort of case.

Weird the lack of clarity in the one page 'ruling'

That said, so far so good.