Today in Supreme Court History

Today in Supreme Court History: January 25, 1819

|

1/25/1819: Thomas Jefferson charters the University of Virginia. 176 years later, the Supreme Court would decide Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995).

The Rehnquist Court

 

NEXT: Writing an Academic Book, Part IV: The Writing Process

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This per se violation of law should have resulted in the rescinding of all governmental privileges for the University of Virginia, including its tax exemption.

    1. Then the plaintiffs would have lost the very forum it sought, genius-bot.

      It of course was also not a per se violation of law, the Founders were quite funny about any taxpayer money going into any religious enterprise.

      1. Hi, Queenie. The governmental purpose of these privileges and subsidies is education. In education all aspects of a subject are covered. Partisan hate is indoctrination, and should get all of them cancelled on the spot.

        1. The plaintiff was suing for a spot or slice of the University pie, destroying the pie would hardly help them. Update your programming to get such nuance.

          1. Discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal in this country.

            I do support all rights to discriminate as long as the market is free to deal consequences. Jim Crow was bad because the lawyer laws prevented the market from dealing consequences. A restaurant expels certain types of people. I open a competitor across the street with big signs welcoming those same people, and thrive. That is what works, not laws.

            The right to discriminate is from the Ninth Amendment. There is no right to avoid the consequences as the lawyer written Jim Crow laws imposed.

            1. This is like a bunch of crazy, contrasting extremist ideas were put in a blender, processed, and then reported.

        2. The denial of standing to the taxpayer is yet another in an endless list of horrifying lawyer fictions. The injury to the taxpayer is quantifiable, unlike most lawyer supernatural doctrines. I can calculate the value of all misused subsidies, divide by the number of taxpayers, and that is my injury.

          The taxpayer should be able to sue the IRS. Enjoin the Deep State IRS to cancel the tax exemption of that once great university until the removal of all of the neo-Marxists occupying responsible positions.

      2. “the Founders were quite funny about any taxpayer money going into any religious enterprise..”

        This is not even remotely true.

        1. ” Who does not see that…the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

        2. “the “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty,” which was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, was enacted. This bill guaranteed “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”

          1. You said “religious enterprise” not church. It is the sweeping overstatement that liberals do not seem to understand. A church is much different than a religious school that provides a general education.

            Also, at the Founding, the various States had vastly different ideas of what was the appropriate government role when it came to funding states.

            On a federal level, the Founders were mostly concerned about there being no “state church” similar to the Church of England.

            1. (not states)…funding religious institutions…

              When will we get that edit button?

            2. any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”

            3. “You said “religious enterprise” not church.”

              So it’s not only *remotely* true, it’s true for a significant subset by your own admission. Good Lord.

              1. Your “Good Lord” remark is highly offensive and deeply hurtful. You need to apologize to the traumatized and triggered atheists.

                1. It is also offensive to God fearing people who do not like the Lord’s name being used in vain. So probably need to apologize and get “cancelled” for your sin.

                2. Lol, you’re pathetic. ‘I hate these principles but anyone who disagrees with me must follow them!’

                  1. No I just think that those who seek to hold other accountable for being “offensive” ought to be held to the same generally applicable standards.

                    1. I support cancel culture when it comes to cancelling the lawyer profession.

              2. There concern over public dollars and religion was quite narrow not some broad sweeping thing like you alluded to in your post. Basically, it was public support of actual churches. That was it. They did not want a “Church of England” type scenario at least at the federal level. Some states, but not all, followed suit as well. But, at the Founding, many states were closely intertwined with churches.

                1. So it’s not so ‘not even remotely true,’ eh?

                  1. Yes your broad sweeping statement is not even remotely true. The very narrow concern of the Founders was that there not be a federal church funding by tax dollars. That was about the extent of it.

                2. Jimmy, the concern was that one state would impose it’s own state religion on the other states. Boston was the largest city at the time, and the fear was that Boston would impose its religion on everyone else.

                3. Religion is, of course, a highly successful competitor to the lawyer profession. It is 100 times more successful at persuading people to care for their families, go to work, follow rules of decency, and help people in need.

                  Religious societies are also wealthy societies. For example, the spiritual works of the Pharaohs still brings in $5 billion in $5 billion a year in tourist visits to Egypt. The poorest person in the religious US lives higher than the rich do in shithole, atheist Europe, never mind Commie China. If homeless, I can go to the clinic at Sloan Kettering and get the same doctors and cancer treatments as Saudi royalty. I can sit on a toilet in a train station, as opposed to squatting over a hole in $200 a meal French restaurant.

                  The lawyer hates religion because it is such a successful competitor at getting people to follow the rules. The lawyer profession is in utter failure at doing that in all the subjects of the law, from Admiralty to Zoo regulations.

          2. May I suggest that the Queen enlighten herself on one historical fact: what is now the Congregational Church was supported by Massachusetts taxpayers until 1855, some 54 years *after* the First Amendment was ratified.

            Not only was the church funded (and the minister paid) out of property tax revenue, but the townspeople voted to hire and fire the minister. To be a town in Massachusetts, you had to convince the General Court (legislature) that you (a) had the tax base to support a minister and his wife, and (b) had one willing to move to your town.

            As an aside, the 1692 Danvers (not Salem) witch matter was, in no small part, about the Salem minister not wanting Danvers to form its own town because their tax dollars would then be going to support their church and not his.

            1. Maryland had heavy ties with the Catholic Church well into the 20th century. Of course, such facts and history are not convenient to those who seek to forward the bigoted and tired old trope that “the Founders were skeptical of religious institutions…” in all of its form.

  2. Choose reason. Every time.

    Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance.

    Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for ignorance, backwardness, gullibility, bigotry, and superstition. By adulthood — this includes ostensible adulthood — it is no excuse.

    Choose reason. And education, tolerance, progress, science, freedom, inclusiveness, and modernity. Avoid intolerance, superstition, ignorance, backwardness, insularity, dogma, authoritarianism, and pining for ‘good old days’ that never existed — not 50 years ago, not 2,000 years ago.

    Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

    Or, at least, please try.

    1. Artie. If you want people to comply with rules that make society livable, based on reason and based on past experience, religion is 100 times more effective than the lawyer profession. If you choose reason, you need to crush the lawyer profession, the most toxic occupation in the nation, more toxic than organized crime.

    2. Good article by William Saletan today on countering the siege of “fake facts” arguments.

      https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/trump-enemy-republicans-facts-lies.html

      The article is entitled, “The Enemy Isn’t Republicans”.

    3. Be like Art – he chooses tolerance and inclusivity every time.

  3. Rector? Nearly killed ‘er!

Please to post comments