Update no.1227

 Update from the Heartland

No.1227

14.7.25 – 20.7.25

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

In Mahmoud v. Taylor [606 U. S. ____ (2025); No. 24–297], the Supremes decided that parental religious beliefs override facts and the common good. Associate Justice Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority, offered a number of real-world examples of parents objecting to a course of instruction for their children on religious grounds. He is emphatically wrong! This is a public domain public good matter, not a private religious faith issue. In the dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Sotomayor wrote, “[Public schools] offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.” She went on to recognize, “[N]ever, in the context of public schools or elsewhere, has this Court held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one’s religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim.”

Opt-out provisions seem like a reasonable compromise, but I see it in an entirely different light. I see opting out as a forced rejection of facts that can never be good for the general public good. No one wishes to deny anyone’s religious beliefs. But, facts are facts.

It is certainly no surprise that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have inflicted their biased views on all American citizens. The inevitable questions arise. Where is the limit? When do the religious predilections of the lowest common denominator among us become the threshold of public acceptance? If some particular religious faction decides the Earth is flat, or the Sun revolves around the Earth, are we all to constrain our children’s education to the lowest common denominator? The State has a responsibility, if not an obligation, to teach our children the facts. Parents have every right to teach their children as they wish. They can and do teach their children hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy, creationism, geocentrism, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. They can and should be held accountable if their teachings cause harm to others. The questions continue. How far does the State’s obligation to protect the common good reach? When do facts exceed religious ideology? I continue to be reminded of the penchant of more than a few who seek ignorance over knowledge . . . religious beliefs over facts.

I fully and completely acknowledge the parental rights to teach their children as they choose what and how they teach their children regarding religious beliefs. They do not have a right to deny facts. If their religious beliefs require them to disregard facts that is their choice, but they cannot impose their beliefs on others. Teaching the facts are not in any way infringement upon anyone’s freedom of religion. What is unreasonable, is any expectation that someone’s religious beliefs can impose upon the facts.

Freedom of choice has to be more resilient to contrarian views, perspectives, and beliefs. However, tolerance is a two-way street. They want us to respect their beliefs. We have every right to expect them to respect our beliefs.

Are religious beliefs that fragile that they can be adversely affected by a child’s storybook?

 

Not even so much as a how’da’ya do, the Supremes decided to validate this president’s dictatorial inclinations in McMahon v. New York [606 U. S. ____ (2025); No. 24A1203]. After being rejected in its request for a temporary stay of a district court injunction against the secretary’s unilateral directive of 25.March.2025 and the president’s Executive Order No. 14242, the government made another emergency request for a ruling from the Supremes, Once again, the 6-3 conservative majority declared the president through his secretary of Education may gut the Department of Education, effectively ending any practical usefulness of the cabinet-level department. The majority offered no rationale, no analysis, and no justification. Sotomayor was spot on correct when she wrote for the dissent, “The Executive has seized for itself the power to repeal federal law by way of mass terminations, in direct contravention of the Take Care Clause and our Constitution’s separation of powers.. However, the president can refuse to spend funds, release all the department’s employees, and leave the department as a mere shell of what it was.” Congress created the Department of Education. Only Congress has the authority to terminate the department. Once again, the conservative majority was dead wrong in their action.

 

After stoking conspiracy theories for years, the chickens have come home to roost for [the person who shall no longer be named; AKA no name]. There are far too many pix and vids of [no name] chumming it up with Jeffrey Epstein to be ignored. The existence of those pix and vids, clearly over many years, suggest that a serious cover-up is afoot, which is most probably why Attorney General Bondi did that speed-of-light flip-flip from “the list is on my desk” to “there is no list”; case closed. If I was a gambling man, I would bet a dollar to donuts that [no name] appears more than a few times in the investigative documents and perhaps even participated in the Epstein sponsored events potentially involving underage young women. This whole sordid affair stinks to high heaven, made worse by [no name] and his bodyguard of lies.

By the end of the week, the con-man extraordinaire threatened to file another US$20B lawsuit, this time against the Wall Street Journal, accusing newspaper of liable in a report about a salacious letter [no name] reportedly sent to his buddy Jeffery Epstein for the man’s 50^th birthday. His intimidation and extortion of the news media continues unabated.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1226:

Comment to the Blog:

“The issues with the Supreme Court go back at least to the Thomas hearings. Too many Justices have been appointed based on loyalty to a political view, not for their legal insights.

“I’ll note that in-groups like the current Resident’s often fail due to their clashes with any handy target and their lack of critical or conflicting input.

“I almost understand the comment on applied research and development, but I assume the Felon’s clique know less than nothing about engineering processes. No capable intellects work in that Cabinet, and educating the public would harm their agenda.”

My response to the Blog:

At least that far. I could argue it goes back to Bjork or even the Roe ruling itself. Republicans have been so narrowly focused on overturning Roe that they were blinded to everything else. They achieved their objective [24.6.2022]. As a consequence, the Supreme Court may have been irreparably compromised.

So noted and agreed.

Quite so. I think that clown show has repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance . . . and worse, they do not care. I cannot see intellect in that bunch of clowns either. As I have also repeatedly stated, the MAGAts prefer ignorance over knowledge. They believe what they believe and could not care less about facts.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)