there are only a few core individuals who consistently step up to the plate

I see this all the time. I wish I could wag my finger at the slackers.

If the guy wants to drink a beer during his vows, let him drink a beer. It's "his" day too! Wait, what were we talking about?

there are only a few core individuals who consistently step up to the plate

Also known (fondly) as The Usual Suspects.

Well, for starters, Beagles, Willett's home page expressly states he prays before taking the bench. If that's not a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, I'm not sure what is.

People privately praying has nothing to do with their ability to issue rulings. Unless we're not going to allow any Christians to have jobs!

He may be praying in private, but he's publicly declaring it, and specifically in terms of his judicial decisions.

I'm not surprised, though, that you don't see the contradiction in this.

Yes, this is totally disqualifying:

Every time I walk onto the bench in Austin, I say a prayer – every single time – for wisdom, for discernment, and of bottomless gratitude for the unfathomable blessing of serving 25 million Texans on the Supreme Court.

OMG That's a HORRIBLE violation of church and state to indicate he prays for wisdom!

Obviously he's just waiting to secretly install a Christian theocracy since he privately prays for wisdom!

Me and just about every credible libertarian organization in the world has a secret plot to put a Christian conservative on the court. You've found us out! Good job!

I think I'm done here.

Beagles, you wrote above: I would be really interested in seeing a source that says Willet has allowed his religious beliefs to influence his judicial decisions.

It took about 30 seconds of googling to find that source--his own home page. See? We can all google to find what supports our statements. I find it very dangerous when people are taken in by pretty charts and graphs and fancy copy/paste jobs, assuming it's knowledge and authority.

Yea, except for the fact that is not in any way an example of how he allows his religious beliefs to influence his judicial decisions.

A person can be a Christian, and pray, and state that he prays for wisdom, and still believe in and defend freedom of religion.

To believe otherwise would deny every single religious person from being a judge.

Muslims pray 5 times a day, I guess we better NEVER have a Muslim Judge!

I'm not sure who you think is being taken in by pretty charts and graphs. I'm a lawyer with a law degree from one of the top law schools in the country and I follow politics and the law very closely, so I'm pretty sure I can formulate and present ideas without being "taken in by pretty charts and graphs."

I'm not arguing that Christians cannot be effective legislators. I'm arguing that Willett has a clearly professed religious bias when you claimed that he held a libertarian slant. You asked me to find a source, and I did. Quite easily.

You edited your response, and I'll edit mine here. You formulate your ideas using pretty charts and graphs that others seem to take as authority. I'm simply demonstrating here that anyone can do that.

Right. Except you didn't. Saying that someone PRAYS for wisdom doesn't mean he brings his religion onto the bench or has a clearly professed religious bias.

You can pray and be religious without having a religious bias. You also seem to be confused about what separation of church and state means, since it certainly doesn't mean people who admit to praying cannot be effective and unbiased judges.

Absolutely no one credible has expressed a single concern about Willett allowing Christian theology to influence his judicial decisions. He is endorsed by petty much every single libertarian organization. His rulings, if you actually read them, show a strong understanding of the constitution and a strong focus on individual freedoms.

You have yet to show any evidence suggesting he has allowed his religion to influence a single decision he has made. You have not shown a single decision he has made which suggest infringement on religious liberty.

If supporting a judge that is widely respected in libertarian circles that has a strong judicial record of supporting freedom somehow makes me a secret Christian Conservative, then so be it.

I'm really done here now.

You have yet to show any evidence suggesting he has allowed his religion to influence a single decision he has made.

I already did that above. And the source was the man himself.

Eh if he sacrificed a chicken before court every morning, I would not be crazy about that either. But doesn't freedom of religions apply to this guy too?

Unless we are requiring jurists to be agnostic, this particular example doesn't, in my eyes, mean that he will not uphold the principles of the separation of church and state. It does mean that he is a devout Christian and we might make assumptions/guesses about what that means in his decision-making process, just like we do when assessing anyone else being considered.

I'm not knocking the guy for religious expression. But when it's clearly and purposefully stated on his home page that he prays before making judicial decisions, that's courting a certain following. And it's not a libertarian perspective. (He's been known to share his religion on social media, too.) So, yes, I would question when it comes to my personal liberties that he would place them at the forefront of his decision-making.

It does mean that he is a devout Christian and we might make assumptions/guesses about what that means in his decision-making process, just like we do when assessing anyone else being considered.

I agree with this! That's why we also have to look at his rulings, his endorsements, and his stated judicial philosophy which strongly suggest he's not one of those judges that's going to say he cannot uphold the law because Jesus doesn't like it. And there certainly are some judges out there who are like that, who I wouldn't be happy if they were put on the bench.

*****

He has the freedom to pray privately. He has the freedom to talk about his religion. What he doesn't have the right to do, and which there is no indication he has done, is to impose his religion on others. Freedom of religion doesn't mean complete abolition of all discussion of religion from the public sphere, for goodness sake!

Here's some other things he's said:

The title “Justice” imposes a sacred duty: to apply our laws with wisdom and evenhandedness, and to never legislate from the bench.

Again, am I saying he's perfect. No.

However, Trump has made clear he is appointing judges from a specific list of 21 candidates. Of that list, Willett is one of the best, especially if you compare him to someone like Pryor, who described Roe v. Wade as creating “a constitutional right to murder an unborn child.”

Nancy Pelosi is a devout catholic and talks about it openly and publicly. I guess she must be a secret Christian conservative who imposed her religion on others too right?

I suppose arguing Willett is the best of the worst makes more sense than arguing he upholds libertarian ideology. This is definitely a hopeful view of the fact that the next one or two or three SC justices will be nominated by Trump and his biggest panderers.

I'm hoping Trump appoints four judges (due to retirements, not hoping for any deaths!), and that he selects the 4 most libertarian people from his list, which contains a few bad apples and many good options.

And whether you agree with it or not, Willett is widely recognized by everyone as being a libertarian despite the fact he has dared to admit to being Christian who prays privately for wisdom on his own time.

Anyway, I really am done now. I'm not even going to open this thread any more, since I keep getting sucked back in.

Good night.

If you want to argue that Willett is the best of the worst, I can understand that. If you argue that he represents libertarian values, then I do not understand that, based on my posts above. Again, don't muddy the waters of what libertarianism is. There are distinct loopholes in your arguments supposedly promoting libertarianism that more accurately ascribe to religious conservatism.

AFAIK, Libertarians oppose public education...?

Well, it's up to Congress to decide which of those SC judges get affirmed. See President Obama's pick for SC that has been held hostage by Congress. So even if Trump picked Libertarian judges, the Christian Right Congress has to affirm the picks-and if they're not going to be anti-abortion or anti-gay rights, they may not get picked.

Carol, yes, and mostly because they view public schools as failing entities. They certainly oppose teachers unions and don't value the Department of Education. The libertarian fundamental stance on education supports parental choice in determining the best education for their children. Most recently, this translated to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson's advocacy for school vouchers.

Nancy Pelosi is a devout catholic and talks about it openly and publicly. I guess she must be a secret Christian conservative who imposed her religion on others too right?

I've never supported or defended Pelosi, so I'm not sure why this false analogy was added to your post above, Beagles.

Neetsie, yes! That's why I am so concerned. I know beagles said she doesn't want to participate in this thread anymore but I really am having a hard time understanding her position. I'm not as articulate as beagles and lisad but I really want to try to understand.

The part that I keep getting stuck on is how a libertarian (beagles) can be so pleased that the next SC nominees will certainly be staunchly conservative. My understanding is that libertarians first and foremost want to protect personal liberties and freedoms. I read their platform and they definitely support reproduction and sexual choice, actually all personal freedoms that do not encroach on those of others. Do I have that right? And RIGHT ON, go with that awesomeness Libertarians, amen!

Conservative Republicans are going to zealously apply themselves to limiting or stopping abortion and same sex marriage. I don't think there are personal liberties more basic than those those two things. How can a Libertarian disregard that??? What in the world is a Libertarian expecting from the SC nominees that is more important to them than personal liberty being protected?

Beagles says the way they interpret the constitution will be better; I'm sorry, I can't remember the exact word for the literal interpretation that beagles used. And then she explained very well the legal aspects of Roe vs. Wade and the use of .....was it the 14th amendment? And I was happy to learn the history there, I'm ashamed that I didn't already know it.

But here is where I get stuck again. Really stuck. Isn't the right to reproductive (and sexual) freedom inherently constitutional? And when states limit those rights is that not unconstitional? This is what I have always assumed. Therefore, I always assumed that the SC rulings simply restored those inherent rights to everyone, basically telling the states to knock it off with the overstepping of authority.

I truly hope beagles will come back and discuss it some more. What is it about the SC judges nominated by Trump and affirmed by a red Congress that will further the Libertarian platform? What is it about Liberal SC judges that is so objectionable to a Libertarian? And I do know the answer has to with fiscal decisions but how and why are those more important than personal liberties?

ETA - ugh, sorry that I wrote a book but I am really stuck on this! Thanks Lisad and Beagles and everyone that is better with words than I. :-)

School vouchers are a sham scheme to siphon public monies into private coffers. & the Libertarian party platforms advocates private schools instead of public - which is profoundly stupid.

I'm in CA and the government here already does a pretty good job of siphoning or squandering public monies for schools. I am happy that we migh have a chance to try something else.

Many states collect and manage public school money at the town or county level. In CA it is collected at the state level, which give them little oversight and a really big pot of money to mismanage.

>>>Isn't the right to reproductive (and sexual) freedom inherently constitutional?

Constitution doesn't mention reproduction, sex, or marriage. One might look up "unenumerated rights", "implied rights", "natural rights" etc.

What the Constitution does say is (9th amendment): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and (14th amendment): "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thank you, Oaktown. I'm the perfect example of what can happen when one assumes.

CA is odd because there are "basic aid" school districts (lots of these the bay area) that don't receive general funding from the state. These districts do manage funds at a local level.

Oaktown, do those basic aid districts perform better than those funded at the state level?

Cattyles - The word you're looking for is "originalist".

Sableincal, yes! That is it, thank you.

LisaD82, it's a bit complicated. Coastal basic aid districts tend to be wealthier, have parents with more education, and have fewer English learners. These districts do tend to have higher API scores (what California uses to measure) than other basic aid districts or revenue limit districts.

Simplified -- basic aid districts generate enough property tax to hit the "revenue limit" per student so they get to keep their property taxes, and they are entitled only to a "basic aid" amount from the state (I think ~$200 per student). Basic aid districts tend to be in more expensive areas, or in areas with smaller student populations relative to properties (some inland districts).

"Revenue limit" districts receive general funding from the state up to their revenue limit (which differs from district to district). Most school districts in California are revenue limit districts. California is moving to a local control funding formula that is supposed to benefit the revenue limit districts.

School districts are able to pass parcel taxes to supplement funding, these require supermajority voting and have senior exemptions (these parcel taxes are mostly in basic aid districts). Another thing that is odd is that it seems most school districts in our area have associated foundations which solicit private donations to help fund school programs in the district. This is on top of PTO/PTA contributions.

School vouchers allow parents more choices in where their children get an education. What could possibly be wrong with that? It provides competition...business 101 teaches that competition equals a better quality product. The state of our public schools is pathetic. Embarrassing. Anyone that thinks private schooling is subpar to a public education has been brainwashed. I guess those same people think homeschooling is a sham. I homeschooled my daughter thru the 3rd grade, only putting her into public school (no private schools in my area) because of a MS diagnosis. She was tested before going into the 4th grade. It clearly pained the principal to admit she was far beyond her grade level and wanted to start her out in the 5th grade. I said no. After graduating with honors, she was given a FULL music scholarship, graduated with a double major and is now (thankfully) a stay at home mom to my two precious grandbabies.

Personally I am opposed to school vouchers (and charter schools in certain instances) because I think they can have a fragmenting effect on community. But also I don't think there is one best right answer that fits everyone.

The state of our public schools is pathetic. Embarrassing. Anyone that thinks private schooling is subpar to a public education has been brainwashed.

I respectfully disagree, and I don't think you can make such an assertion across the board. Perhaps this has been your experience, but my family's experience differs. Your daughter's story is inspirational, but I could also relay stories of homeschooled kids and those who have attended private school who have suffered. There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to education.

There's such a wide variance in how education is funded that there aren't any broad-based claims that can be made, I don't think. I didn't know that about CA, Oakton--thanks for explaining. I've seen teachers' unions hold communities hostage but I'm not sold on vouchers. It's so dependent on many factors.

Oklahoma apparently has its own huge funding mess now--some of their public schools have gone to 4-day school weeks.

... and then there's my anecdotal example of a high school friend who spent 20 years in marketing and then decided he wanted to become a teacher. He found a job at a charter elementary school in AZ. No teaching degree, no teaching experience. He's a nice guy, sure, but I wouldn't give him the reins to teach my kids. Apparently about 22 sets of parents have, though. Now, he's the one posting those memes on FB counting down the days to winter break, complaining about grading papers, etc.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to education...

An even better argument for vouchers. Don't know how long it's been since you have looked at a public school textbook but it makes me sick to my stomach to see what and how my grandchildren are learning. Rewritten history, questions on how do you feel or what do you think when answers should be factual. How do you grade someone on their feelings or what they think the right answer is? Some people wonder why the news media has to dumb down the news, it might just have something to do with the dumbing-down of education. It's sad.

School vouchers allow parents more choices in where their children get an education. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Vouchers allow "some" parents a choice. They do little to help the poor. The school makes the final decision on who to allow/reject.

Then there are all the other negatives ... https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2011-church-state/featured/10-reasons-why-private-school-vouchers-should-be

Rewritten textbooks?

Like Civil War revisionist history? That makes me sick too.

Monica, can you give us an example of those type of questions?

Monica, I also would like to know where this school is and what books are being used.

"only putting her into public school (no private schools in my area) because of a MS diagnosis. She was tested before going into the 4th grade. It clearly pained the principal to admit she was far beyond her grade level and wanted to start her out in the 5th grade. I said no. After graduating with honors, she was given a FULL music scholarship, graduated with a double major and is now (thankfully) a stay at home mom to my two precious grandbabies."

Sounds like she did did pretty well in Public School.

I think Monica's schools must be using Common Core. We have just recently been forced to switch and no one is happy.

I want kids to learn how to think, not just rattle off facts. There is no point in knowing facts if you can't put them into some kind of context.

I think public schools across the country are very, very, very different.

Our district nominally uses Math Expressions for K-5. It is ok. Personally I think it is a lot better than Everyday Math. (Some of the 5th grade teachers have more or less ditched Math Expressions and are using more of a Khan Academy approach.)

I may be mistaken, but the Common Core is a set of standards; how they are met is the district's business. A minimum standard of education seems like a good thing. If it is challenging, we ought to ask why. The "new math" can be confusing because it teaches several options for generating answers, and it is not rote -- you have to understand the concept (math expressions is pretty good in elementary). And vouchers -- if charter and other for-profit schools pop up, they will market any way they can to get your voucher dollars. They will decline to educate those with challenging behaviors, special needs, IEPs, 501s, and those children will be left to the public schools, with fewer resources to meet their needs. If you have the money -- great -- buy whatever education you wish. But if you don't have the money, you will be limited to what the voucher folks offer -- and they would aim to make a profit doing so. The incentives to create great 'results' will be immense -- so teaching to the tests (so they can advertise their students do well); and dropping challenging students.... the incentives will be in the wrong place. Some charter schools do very well, but for accurate comparisons, the number of free/reduced lunches, special needs students, english as a second language, etc. needs to be similar for true comparison.

The school is in Mineola, Tx. I don't recall the subject(s). Texas banned Common Core but it's here.

I don't remember the scenarios enough to quote them but one was a series of events where a little boy had to make a decision based upon those events. The question was what do you "think" Johnny thought that brought him to his decision. There were questions like how do you feel about a certain emoji! WHAAAT!? Why are we learning about emojis in school and even worse, how we "feel" about them.

Pretty sure we all want our children to learn to think :o I taught thinking skills when I home schooled. Thinking skills are important. This is not what I'm talking about.

maddielee, I knew when I wrote that that someone would make the comment you made. She did do well. She also had a very good start to her education by the one person that cared most about her future than anyone...ME. And apparently I did a very good job. I don't want to abolish public school. I want them to excel. I think people would be shocked and sadden if they knew how far down the US ranks in education in the world.

As a capitalist pig by day, I like the idea of competition in any form. However, the best way to have good testing outcomes is to start with a blessed population. If you want the best scores, you are going to discriminate against the weakest kids. Schools are not a good place to apply profit motives. Neither is the EPA.

As others have said, school funding runs the gamut. In my area of the world, the Northeastern US, there are many truly excellent school districts, very well funded by property taxes, PTOs, and 501c's. But that, too, makes for great outcomes town by town, and leaves behind the poorest areas.

The cornerstone of democracy is a free and appropriate public education for all. We need to get this right. Is a lot better use of our money than trying to save a handful of Carrier mfg jobs. OUr future is in education.

Wow. And we wonder why gardenweb has lost members. I find this very sad. Good bye.

FWIW, I heard the other day that OK's public schools have been so diminished monetarily by the state's tax cuts, that many have been forced to cut their school week to 4 days. Voters shot down a proposed 1 cent increase in sales tax, but not because they don't want their schools to improve. It was because they say that sales tax disproportionately falls on those w/ less $$ & that the state needs to be budgeting more $$ to the schools in the first place.

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/11/30/oklahoma-schools-four-day-weeks

Additionally, forgive me if this was already mentioned & I missed it, but many districts rely on property taxes to fund public school systems, which,of course results in a lot of disparity.