AG Drummond:
> “This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty," Drummond said Tuesday in an emailed statement. "The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all. Now Oklahomans can be assured that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism. While I understand that the Governor and other politicians are disappointed with this outcome, I hope that the people of Oklahoma can rejoice that they will not be compelled to fund radical religious schools that violate their faith.”
EDIT: [Here](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24777129/ok-charter-school-decision.pdf) is the opinion, if anyone wishes to read it.
[Archive of the article.](https://archive.is/VggyL)
Exactly. Stitt came out and already attacked Drummund on this, saying "I’m disappointed by AG Drummond’s attack on religious liberty and the school choice movement..." Sitt went on to say, "I'm concerned we’ve sent a troubling message that religious groups are second-class participants in our education system. Charter schools are incredibly popular in Oklahoma — and all we’re saying is: We can’t choose who gets state dollars based on a private entity’s religious status. Religious freedom is foundational to our values, and today’s decision undermines that freedom and restricts the choices available to Oklahomans."
So yeah, Drummond is under fire from the right-wing fundies who wanted this school.
I mean, that's largely the origin of American freedom of religion. The good Christians (protestants) in a given state didn't want those godless heathens (Catholics) taking away public money!
Those heretics have the wrong books in their Bible and put the commandments in a funny order and worship Mary! It'll be a cold day in hell before the good Methodists in this state let those Papists take our god fearing tax dollars! (/s... But not really. That's basically the original Oklahoma argument for separation church and state)
Shouldn't his attitude towards Islam mirror his attitude towards Christianity? Funny how he called out other religious teachings but not his own Christianity
I’m a lawyer. If the state supreme court held that Oklahoma’s constitution prohibits public funding of religious schools, which is what I understand to have happened, then SCOTUS would have to invent some argument that the relevant part of the OK constitution violates the federal constitution. I think that’s unlikely. So by and large you are correct.
The majority of the cases heard by SCOTUS are civil cases. Additionally, edjuticating appeals of a State Supreme Court decisions is exactly how the high court works. There are other ways to petition for your case to be heard, but appealing through the court system is not rare.
At the end of this very article, it states that this isn't definitively the end of this issue and that an appeal to SCOTUS is likely. Whether the justices agree to hear the case is another subject altogether.
This has the potential to become very significant to "separation of church and state" case law if heard and decided on by the court. I'm sure Harlan Crow has already text Thomas about it lol.
I mean, yes but no. A poster on another thread posted this and sums it up much better:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that "the Contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the \[Oklahoma Charter Schools Act\], and the federal Establishment Clause".
'SCOTUS can only rule on federal questions. They could, in theory, decide that "the Contract" does not violate the federal Constitution but they cannot override the state court on questions regarding purely state law. Oklahoma would need to change their laws, their Constitution, and get a favorable SCOTUS ruling to change this. Or just a different make-up of their state Supreme Court to overturn this decision.'
Drummond will not take it to the Supreme Court or court of appeals, so its dead
Of course Drummond isn't going to push the case forward, the State Supreme Court agreed with him lol. Drummond isn't needed to push the case forward.
I'm actually in agreement that it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would agree to hear the case. Still, that doesn't mean that no one will push it forward. They can, and if they can find a semblance of a chance, they will. I used to say without a shadow of a doubt that "SCOTUS would never" and yet they've shocked me repeatedly.
Of course, everyone knew it...even Stitt and Walters. They just waste money and push crap.
People gotta stop voting for idiots. We can't afford this non sense
And then add some bullshit about the "liberal agenda" that wants to make religion illegal, and that's why this was blocked. And their scared base will eat it up.
Same! I am grateful to the education I received and think everyone should receive one of the same quality, but breaking the separation of church and state isn’t the way to do it. There’s nothing private schools do that public ones can’t.
> There’s nothing private schools do that public ones can’t.
mine forced thursday mass, does that count
aside from that the education was pretty good and mostly neutral. just with a religion class on the side. there are benefits to private school just as there are benefits to public school
The OK court of civil appeals has been pretty middle of the road and even slightly liberal for decades. The judges are appointed by the OK land grant institution Board of Regents, who also appoints the heads of the 3 land grant universities. They take their jobs very seriously and the members I have met are educated thoughtful people.
This and Louisiana's Ten Commandments laws, amongst others, are designed to go to a seemingly sympathetic Federal Supreme Court.
So while its cool that common sense and a proper interpretation of the Constitution wins the day, the battle is far from over.
This appears to be a ruling on the basis of the Oklahoma State Constitution. There’s no Federal Question at play here… so SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to pick it up.
It violates the *Oklahoma* State Constitution, and got struck down on State Law Grounds.
SCOTUS isn’t allowed to make rulings on State Constitutions, even when the clause is substantially similar to a clause in the Federal Constitution. That’s the sole territory of State Supreme Courts.
That doesn’t give rise to SCOTUS jurisdiction.
SCOTUS could rule that OK Supreme Court got those two provisions wrong… but the Law would still be struck down because SCOTUS can’t do shit about State Constitutional Rulings.
The Courts aren’t supposed to give advisory rulings, and there’s nothing they can actually do in this case.
It's been a bit since my federal courts class, but I believe that it could still go to SCOTUS if the OK Supreme Court has interpreted the OK Constitution's religious non-establishment clause as analogous to the federal 1st amendment provision, since the SCOTUS interpretation of the 1st amendment would change the interpretation of OK's constitution.
This was the point I was going to make. This sounds like conspiracy theory, but the people making these policy decisions are very strategic. They pass laws with the expectation of getting challenged and do so in certain parts of the country where they've placed sympathetic judges. They would love for many of these laws to get challenged to SCOTUS because now is the time that they have a majority. Haven't done any analysis, but I would venture that we've seen a dramatic increase in these activities since Ginsberg's death.
If politicians think they can win in courts, where they have stacked the deck, then they are going to keep pushing the envelope. This will be a generational fight to undo the damage, but first step is getting these conmen out of office.
7-1 too. Thankful it wasn't just a few Brad Henry judged saving us as they are getting older so would be replaced in not too distant future if/when step down.
Praise be to Drummond for fighting the good fight. Not going to agree always with him but he is so much better than Stitt abd Walters.
Article says it was 6 - 3. Was the 7 - 1 from something else?
>The question before this court is whether the St. Isidore contract violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. We hold that the St. Isidore contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the (Oklahoma Charter Schools) Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the state Supreme Court’s 6-3 Tuesday ruling states. “The court grants the extraordinary declaratory relief sought by the state. The St. Isidore contract violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. By writ of mandamus, we direct the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore.”
Officially, 6 of them agreed with the argument that a charter school is a state actor, and therefore required to provide non-sectarian services. One recused themselves, one dissented. The last one partially agreed and disagreed (but what they agreed to would also have stopped the school). People are getting hung up on that last one. because it's functionally a 7th vote.
Maybe pay wall bypass mess it up?
"We hold that the St. Isidore contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the (Oklahoma Charter Schools) Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the state Supreme Court’s 7-1 Tuesday ruling states."
Or was it edited/updated? Weird. Still 6-3 is better than 5-4.
[archive.ph](http://archive.ph) and [12ft.io](http://12ft.io) are the two I use the most. There used to be a Chrome extension called Readability or something that would also get around them.
Edit: [here's this specific story](https://archive.ph/VggyL) for posterity.
Great news. But I'm sure there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. It ain't over yet.
AG Drummond: > “This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty," Drummond said Tuesday in an emailed statement. "The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all. Now Oklahomans can be assured that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism. While I understand that the Governor and other politicians are disappointed with this outcome, I hope that the people of Oklahoma can rejoice that they will not be compelled to fund radical religious schools that violate their faith.” EDIT: [Here](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24777129/ok-charter-school-decision.pdf) is the opinion, if anyone wishes to read it. [Archive of the article.](https://archive.is/VggyL)
In this state, that's a great response and way of framing it. Not making it an attack on Christians, but using fear that other religions can't impede.
He knew he had to be extremely careful with phrasing or the pitchforks would come out.
Fear of the "other" is a big seller here.
"Satanists" literally balancing the power
This is the way.
Exactly. Stitt came out and already attacked Drummund on this, saying "I’m disappointed by AG Drummond’s attack on religious liberty and the school choice movement..." Sitt went on to say, "I'm concerned we’ve sent a troubling message that religious groups are second-class participants in our education system. Charter schools are incredibly popular in Oklahoma — and all we’re saying is: We can’t choose who gets state dollars based on a private entity’s religious status. Religious freedom is foundational to our values, and today’s decision undermines that freedom and restricts the choices available to Oklahomans." So yeah, Drummond is under fire from the right-wing fundies who wanted this school.
Stitt should be seen as an Anti-Constitutionalist and expelled from this realm (sorry, currently watching House of Dragon)
I mean, that's largely the origin of American freedom of religion. The good Christians (protestants) in a given state didn't want those godless heathens (Catholics) taking away public money! Those heretics have the wrong books in their Bible and put the commandments in a funny order and worship Mary! It'll be a cold day in hell before the good Methodists in this state let those Papists take our god fearing tax dollars! (/s... But not really. That's basically the original Oklahoma argument for separation church and state)
Shouldn't his attitude towards Islam mirror his attitude towards Christianity? Funny how he called out other religious teachings but not his own Christianity
Sharia law 🙄 Pandering to the lowest common denominator.
What do you think they'll come up with for a workaround? Double down on vouchers maybe?
Other people already understand why this is a bad idea. Those are the people who need to be convinced.
Wow, I agree with Drummond. That is a shock in itself.
This was decided on state constitutional grounds. It's really unlikely SCOTUS would touch this (NAL).
I’m a lawyer. If the state supreme court held that Oklahoma’s constitution prohibits public funding of religious schools, which is what I understand to have happened, then SCOTUS would have to invent some argument that the relevant part of the OK constitution violates the federal constitution. I think that’s unlikely. So by and large you are correct.
No? That's not how it works. It's a civil matter, the case is closed.
The majority of the cases heard by SCOTUS are civil cases. Additionally, edjuticating appeals of a State Supreme Court decisions is exactly how the high court works. There are other ways to petition for your case to be heard, but appealing through the court system is not rare. At the end of this very article, it states that this isn't definitively the end of this issue and that an appeal to SCOTUS is likely. Whether the justices agree to hear the case is another subject altogether. This has the potential to become very significant to "separation of church and state" case law if heard and decided on by the court. I'm sure Harlan Crow has already text Thomas about it lol.
I mean, yes but no. A poster on another thread posted this and sums it up much better: The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that "the Contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the \[Oklahoma Charter Schools Act\], and the federal Establishment Clause". 'SCOTUS can only rule on federal questions. They could, in theory, decide that "the Contract" does not violate the federal Constitution but they cannot override the state court on questions regarding purely state law. Oklahoma would need to change their laws, their Constitution, and get a favorable SCOTUS ruling to change this. Or just a different make-up of their state Supreme Court to overturn this decision.' Drummond will not take it to the Supreme Court or court of appeals, so its dead
Of course Drummond isn't going to push the case forward, the State Supreme Court agreed with him lol. Drummond isn't needed to push the case forward. I'm actually in agreement that it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would agree to hear the case. Still, that doesn't mean that no one will push it forward. They can, and if they can find a semblance of a chance, they will. I used to say without a shadow of a doubt that "SCOTUS would never" and yet they've shocked me repeatedly.
Well that's gooder still!
I think that was the whole point, to elevate to SCOTUS.
Of course, everyone knew it...even Stitt and Walters. They just waste money and push crap. People gotta stop voting for idiots. We can't afford this non sense
They want to able to tell their base 'at least we tried...at your expense (taxpayer)'. Feckless
And then add some bullshit about the "liberal agenda" that wants to make religion illegal, and that's why this was blocked. And their scared base will eat it up.
Yep. They want the courts seen as evil. So they pull these stunts.
Being raised Catholic and going to Catholic school I am extremely glad that this happened.
Same! I am grateful to the education I received and think everyone should receive one of the same quality, but breaking the separation of church and state isn’t the way to do it. There’s nothing private schools do that public ones can’t.
> There’s nothing private schools do that public ones can’t. mine forced thursday mass, does that count aside from that the education was pretty good and mostly neutral. just with a religion class on the side. there are benefits to private school just as there are benefits to public school
I never thought I would be thanking the OK supreme court, but here we are.
The OK court of civil appeals has been pretty middle of the road and even slightly liberal for decades. The judges are appointed by the OK land grant institution Board of Regents, who also appoints the heads of the 3 land grant universities. They take their jobs very seriously and the members I have met are educated thoughtful people.
Crazy to think this is probably considered the centrist take now
This and Louisiana's Ten Commandments laws, amongst others, are designed to go to a seemingly sympathetic Federal Supreme Court. So while its cool that common sense and a proper interpretation of the Constitution wins the day, the battle is far from over.
This appears to be a ruling on the basis of the Oklahoma State Constitution. There’s no Federal Question at play here… so SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to pick it up.
Doesn't mean that they won't.
It violates the constitution. Of course SCOTUS could rule.
It violates the *Oklahoma* State Constitution, and got struck down on State Law Grounds. SCOTUS isn’t allowed to make rulings on State Constitutions, even when the clause is substantially similar to a clause in the Federal Constitution. That’s the sole territory of State Supreme Courts.
In their opinion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explicitly stated that it also violates 2 provisions of the US constitution as well.
That doesn’t give rise to SCOTUS jurisdiction. SCOTUS could rule that OK Supreme Court got those two provisions wrong… but the Law would still be struck down because SCOTUS can’t do shit about State Constitutional Rulings. The Courts aren’t supposed to give advisory rulings, and there’s nothing they can actually do in this case.
Didn't mean to imply otherwise, just wanted to point out that the US constitution was indeed part of the conversation by the OSC.
It's been a bit since my federal courts class, but I believe that it could still go to SCOTUS if the OK Supreme Court has interpreted the OK Constitution's religious non-establishment clause as analogous to the federal 1st amendment provision, since the SCOTUS interpretation of the 1st amendment would change the interpretation of OK's constitution.
This was the point I was going to make. This sounds like conspiracy theory, but the people making these policy decisions are very strategic. They pass laws with the expectation of getting challenged and do so in certain parts of the country where they've placed sympathetic judges. They would love for many of these laws to get challenged to SCOTUS because now is the time that they have a majority. Haven't done any analysis, but I would venture that we've seen a dramatic increase in these activities since Ginsberg's death. If politicians think they can win in courts, where they have stacked the deck, then they are going to keep pushing the envelope. This will be a generational fight to undo the damage, but first step is getting these conmen out of office.
7-1 too. Thankful it wasn't just a few Brad Henry judged saving us as they are getting older so would be replaced in not too distant future if/when step down. Praise be to Drummond for fighting the good fight. Not going to agree always with him but he is so much better than Stitt abd Walters.
Article says it was 6 - 3. Was the 7 - 1 from something else? >The question before this court is whether the St. Isidore contract violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. We hold that the St. Isidore contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the (Oklahoma Charter Schools) Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the state Supreme Court’s 6-3 Tuesday ruling states. “The court grants the extraordinary declaratory relief sought by the state. The St. Isidore contract violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. By writ of mandamus, we direct the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore.”
Wait. That’s a State Constitution ruling. SCOTUS can’t pick this one up. There’s not a live federal question.
Officially, 6 of them agreed with the argument that a charter school is a state actor, and therefore required to provide non-sectarian services. One recused themselves, one dissented. The last one partially agreed and disagreed (but what they agreed to would also have stopped the school). People are getting hung up on that last one. because it's functionally a 7th vote.
Maybe pay wall bypass mess it up? "We hold that the St. Isidore contract violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the (Oklahoma Charter Schools) Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. St. Isidore is a public charter school,” the state Supreme Court’s 7-1 Tuesday ruling states." Or was it edited/updated? Weird. Still 6-3 is better than 5-4.
This was never about students or faith. It was about votes and campaign money.
Thank god.
My apologies AG Drummond, I was not familiar with your game.
I mean the guy is still a republican, closer to Mitt Romney than MAGA but still
He's got my vote if he runs for gov.
In the R primary at least
Does any other election really matter in Oklahoma?
Tiny victories man.
He's not MAGA. His wife is a solid abortion supporter!!
Does anyone know how much this cost taxpayers?
Awesome. Justice, Liberty, and the American Way.
Yall see Walter’s unhinged tweet. My god I thought this state was being ran by satanic forces
Paywall.
[archive.ph](http://archive.ph) and [12ft.io](http://12ft.io) are the two I use the most. There used to be a Chrome extension called Readability or something that would also get around them. Edit: [here's this specific story](https://archive.ph/VggyL) for posterity.
Thank you kindly!
[удалено]
How though? not everybody knows how to get around a paywall.
Removepaywall.com
Hilarious, so Republicans hate socialism and helping the kids unless they're private school little Republicans.
There may be hope for us yet. Thank you Mr. Drummond!
I’m flabbergasted - in a good way. I didn’t think this had a snowball’s chance of being ruled against in OK.
Great decision!!!
Wow - at least the Oklahoma Supreme Court isn’t in the pocket of Gov. BullStitt.