You are told that you have to build a garage. You decide to also build a shed. A court rules that the mandate to build a garage actually prohibits you from building a shed, even though you are still building the garage.
Does anyone else find that counter-intuitive?
Apparently this is the reasoning behind a variety of court wins for "teachers unions against choice" (Not a real organization, but it's what they do).
Multiple states have enacted school choice laws that allow parents to send their children to private schools and use tax credits or deductions to help pay the fees. Predictably a variety of teachers' unions have sued to stop this, arguing that the duty to establish a public school system precludes the state's ability to have any other education programs available to parents. Because why wouldn't they oppose the ability of parents to do what they thought was best for their children?
So back to the lawsuits.
Idaho State Supreme Court ruled that this is perfectly constitutional. Good.
A Utah district judge and an Ohio district judge have both, however, ruled that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the law. In Tennessee this argument has also been used, but with no rulings yet.
Is it just me or is this a retarded take that should be laughed out of court? I'm not a lawyer, just a well educated guy, but this stuff makes me wonder about our legal system.
Oh, and as a related and relevant aside, this is why I still read CATO because they do still occasionally put out good stuff, but only if it's unrelated to Trump or immigration.
https://www.cato.org/blog/victory-choice-idaho-parental-choice-tax-credit-upheld
No comments:
Post a Comment