>> The Supreme Court has just ruled on whether public money, taxpayer money, can go toward
religious schools or if tax credits could be used when it comes to religious schools.
Now this is a curious ruling, but unfortunately the conservative judges, Supreme Court justices,
I should say, ruled in favor of allowing religious schools to get this type of funding.
So the controversy did stem from a program created by the Montana legislature back in
2015, that allowed residents to receive a tax credit up to $150 for a contribution to
a scholarship program. And the state decided, well, we're not supposed to promote religion.
We're not supposed to allow for public money to go toward religion.
So as a result, we're gonna exclude religious schools. Well, this case went all the way
to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of parents in Montana
seeking to use a state scholarship program to send their children to religious schools.
The court said that a Montana tax credit program that directed money to private schools could
not exclude religious schools.
The 5-4 ruling was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's four
conservative justices. And Cenk, let me just give you an excerpt of the decision that Roberts
wrote. He said a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides
to do so, it cannot disqualify some private school solely because they're religious.
And then in the dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer wrote. If, for 250 years, we have drawn
a line at forcing taxpayers to pay the salaries of those who teach their faith from the pulpit.
I do not see how we can today require Montana to adopt a different view respecting those
who teach it in the classroom.
>> Yeah, I actually think this is a hard case. So you know me, I'm very progressive on policy
but when it comes to the court, I'm mixed. And so here are the two conflicting issues.
It's both in the First Amendment. We have to make sure that we separate church and state,
right?
And so that would lean towards and not establishing a religion. That will lean towards not giving
public money to a private religious school. On the other hand, we can't discriminate against
religion. Well, that would lean towards, well, if non-religious people are getting it, religious
institutions should be able to get it as well.
So I don't think it's a clear-cut case. But in this situation, it's the Montana constitution
that says more clearly that you're not allowed to give to these religious schools. So the
Supreme Court is not just judging a federal law. They're overturning the Montana Supreme
Court saying what you're doing is so unconstitutional federally that we're gonna vitiate a part
of your state constitution.
And to me, that's a much higher barrier. And I don't think that they cleared that barrier
in this case. I think it was five conservative, religious justices who wanted to rule that
way politically and found a way to do it. >> What I have a problem with is that private
schools, especially private religious schools are held at a completely different standard
compared to typical public schools, right?
So for instance, at a public school, you can't teach classes that demonize gay people or
members of the LGBTQ community. You can't do something that can be described as discriminatory
or for instance, we've done stories in the past of religious schools who get involved
in the personal lives of their students.
That basically tell students that they're not allowed to have premarital sex. They're
not allowed to do this, they're not allowed to do that because it goes along with their
religion. And the reason why that type of behavior or here's a perfect example. In the
past, a lot of these religious schools have ended up firing educators after they find
out the educator engaged in premarital sex, or the educator happens to be gay.
And the thing that has protected the schools from being able to do that is that they're
not in any way publicly funded. Well, now that there is this element of public money,
they should have to abide by the same rules that public schools have to abide by. That
means you don't get to fire teachers because they happen to be gay, right?
I mean, if it's a private school, then it gets to be treated as a private school and
they get to be as vicious I guess, as they want to people who don't follow the rules
and regulations of their religion. But if we're gonna have public funds involved here,
I just think that they need to be held to the same standard as public schools when it
comes to those types of issues.
>> See, that's why we're gonna have an even bigger mess now. Because a little while earlier,
the Supreme Court ruled that you can't discriminate against people who are LGBTQ so. But now these
religious institutions can. So they're gonna get public money and be able to discriminate
with it.
But the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. So I don't know how they're gonna resolve
that. And so, look, I think that, to the best of our abilities, we should treat religious
and non-religious people the same. I really do believe that, I think conservatives are
not crazy to think that.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. But the problem is giving public
money to people who discriminate with it against other members of the community and citizens.
And so it's a tough case. But I really think especially given how clear the Montana constitution
was, they should have just let it stand and not allowed for the schools to get the money.
>> Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it was a bad ruling and we'll see how this plays
out in the future. But it sets a precedent. And one person who's definitely ecstatic about
this is Betsy Devos who wants nothing more than to be able to defund public schools and
funnel that money into private religious schools.
She wants to completely dismantle the public education system which she worked very hard
to do in her own State of Michigan. And in regard to this ruling, she said the following.
This decision represents a turning point in the sad and static history of American education,
and it will spark a new beginning of education that focuses first on students and their needs.
I'm calling on all states to now seize the extraordinary opportunity to expand all education
options at all schools to every single student in America. Now keep in mind, there's no discussion
about increasing taxes in order to ensure there's enough funding to keep these schools
afloat or the school districts afloat.
What this essentially means is what little resources public schools have now could be
shared with religious schools that aren't held to any particular standard. Whether it
comes to discriminatory practices or the curriculum. >> Yeah, well, it's Betsy Devos' dream come
true. She's less concerned about constitutional principles than I am.
She was very clear from the get-go, let's give it to the religious. Okay, let's go to
the religious schools. Who gives a damn who they get discriminated against? So that's
the only thing she cares about other than her money and funneling a lot of the public
money to private schools, who are her friends and how partly how she got her ten yachts
so.
And remember one other thing about this is yes, it's about religion in particular. But
Devos loves pushing private schools, not just because she's a religious zealot. But also
because it means it goes to the money, the funding, goes to other private schools that
she's aligned with financially. So for her, it's a massive win-win, cuz it allows discrimination
and corruption.