CathInfo.com

In deciding Espinoza, the Court has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses. In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry, even if other justifications seem neutral.
The Espinoza case dates back to 2015, when, shortly after state lawmakers enacted the tax-credit scholarship program, the Montana Department of Revenue devised a rule that banned families from using the scholarships to attend religious schools, which account for more than two-thirds of the state’s private schools. The case is brought by three Montana moms whose children are thriving at a private religious school; without the tax-credit scholarships, the families are struggling to pay tuition. (Litigating on behalf of the parents is the Institute for Justice, where I work, though I’m not directly involved with the lawsuit.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/espinoza-montana-bigoted-laws/604756/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

Great article, Poche.  Thanks for sharing.  You truly are a "hero member" here at CathInfo.

 Poche is like the Energizer Bunny.  I think he'll always be at CathInfo no matter what.

PS...I can't *wait* to see his responses.

You know how Ann Barnhard uses the following tagline to close every single post of hers:  "Furthermore, I consider that Islam must be destroyed."  Even if she's talking about her favorite recipe for apple pie.

Mark should have just put that on his signature line:  "Furthermore, I consider that poche must be banned."

Our very own "Cartago delenda est".