The Supreme Court saves us; Oklahoma Republicans who can't stand each other have rich things to say
Author’s Note: As spring sports wind down, I’m hoping to write more about state politics, policy and government. I’ve never put those pieces behind paywalls in the past and I’ll never put a majority of them behind them in the future. Still, in an effort to keep Oklahoma Columnist viable, some pieces may be reserved for donators. If you’d like to help keep more of my work available to all or would just like to receive all of my writing, please consider a donation in the form of a paid subscription for just $6/month or $60/year. Thanks for reading. It’s never taken for granted.
Too close for comfort, but a victory for critical thinkers nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to make it 1962 and before all over again.
You remember 1962?
That’s when Engel vs. Vitale and, a year later, Abington School District vs. Schempp were decided, eliminating mandatory school prayer in America’s public schools.
It was a time southern whites were overwhelmingly Democrats, a decade or two before they’d all become Republicans because non-southern Democrats (and a good number of justice-minded Republicans) dared give Blacks the right to vote, eat in the same restaurant, begin to not be legally discriminated against, etc.
To be free, really.
It was before Heat of the Night, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and To Sir, with Love, all of which arrived in 1967, which just goes to prove nobody, anybody, in the American cinematic arts has ever had a year like Sidney Poitier had in ’67.
Holy freaking cow.
It was the year an unlistenable instrumental called “Stranger on the Shore” from clarinetest Acker Bilk was the No. 1 song of the year and you can look it up if you want to.
I mean, you’ll hate it, but it’s available.
Bob Dylan wouldn’t come up with “The Times They are a Changin” for another two years, though perhaps, inch by inch, they already were.
And by a 4-4 decision, released Thursday, the court made it so we’d not return to that previous less enlightened time, failing to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling blocking state funding of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a ruling in line with the Oklahoma constitution, in which separation of church and state is even more clear than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So, a bullet dodged.
Many believe Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, thereby leaving just eight votes, because of her close relationship with a Notre Dame law professor who advised the Catholic Church in Oklahoma, and many believe when a similar case comes down the pike she’ll indeed become the fifth vote green-lighting an end to separation of church and state in in America.
Many also believe, based on questioning during the case’s hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the court’s three-vote “liberal” minority to create the tie.
I buy the Roberts inference, but I’m not so certain about Coney Barrett, who could have sold out the Constitution several times previously yet most times found a way not to, just ask your craziest faux-informed echo-chambered conservative friend.
She may relish the role.
Who’s to know?
What do we know?
Once again, we know what our most famous and infamous Oklahoma office holders, all Republicans, have to say about it, which is never not entertaining because they all hate each other.
What a state, right?
Begin with governor Kevin Stitt, via released statement:
“This 4-4 tie is a non-decision. Now we’re in overtime. There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie. This is far from a settled issue. We are going to keep fighting for parents’ rights to instill their values in their children and against religious discrimination.”
The last part’s a beaut. Let’s see it again:
“We are going to keep fighting for parents’ rights to instill their values in their children and against religious discrimination.”
It’s the oldest trick in the Republican Playbook of Disingenuousness, which I’m pretty sure they really call it, because the moment parents quit having the right to pass their values on to their children was never, and if we’re intellectually honest, allowing state funding of a religious school is the direct opposite of that. And still, arguments like Stitt’s have been the whacko Republican response for more than 40 years going back to Newt Gingrich hijacking the House chamber on C-SPAN.
Remember scrolling cable channels in the 1980’s?
There’s a place for religious instruction and it’s called church, or temple, or synagogue (or the dinner table), actual locations or states of being in front of the television, radio, your laptop or phone. All are free to attend or not. And should you really want it in schools, you’re free to pay for it.
Easy peasy.
It’s called freedom and what’s more American than that?
I wonder if state superintendent Ryan Walters had anything to say?
“I really believe this is a common-sense issue. The people of Oklahoma wanted more options for families to choose the direction of their child’s education … A charter school was approved. The charter school was a Catholic charter school. That’s what the parents wanted. Because some individuals have a sentiment against Christianity and against faith, they ruled against this school.”
That first sentence is rich, because the next time anybody associates Walters with common sense will be the first time. The last sentence is from the same dumbed down playbook Stitt parroted.
Sure, the reason St. Isidore continues to be killed isn’t the constitution, our state’s or the nation’s, but because a bunch of anti-faith, anti-Christians will do anything to stop it.
Go round up a bunch of Catholic educators, priests and nuns included, assure them their names won’t be attached to their sentiments and I promise you many are against public funding of Catholic schools.
Even Walters’ second sentence, extrapolated, is troublesome, because while standing up for parental rights will never be bad politics, the need for a common curriculum that actually educates and spurs learning is entirely necessary no matter parental sentiments. It’s why public school systems exist in the first place. Parents have a role, but it can’t be determinative because real standards are required.
Thankfully, for one Oklahoma office holder, the court’s decision was a victory.
That, of course, is attorney general Gentner Drummond, who responded this way via tweet:
“The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values.”
Oh, Gentner.
That’s one way to look at it.
Also, true, if you allow a charter school run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa, you ought to allow charter schools run by every religious persuasion.
Still, it’s disingenuous, because were a truly radical non-Christian faith-based entity to petition for a charter school, only the Supreme Court could make the state do it, the same way it forced integration in the ’70s, and that’s unlikely to happen.
Author’s aside:
A radical Christian-based charter school? Sure, that could happen in Oklahoma if constitutions are thrown in the wastebasket.
Not that I don’t enjoy what Drummond had to say.
It’s far more on the level than his Republican political opponents, it’s consistent on the way the law ought to work (though likely never would in Oklahoma) and it’s more palatable to the voters he wants to reach than publicly siding by name with the legal judgments of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s so-called “liberals,” or as I think of them, the court’s actual constitutionalists.
It’s a tightrope.
If Drummond can walk it while foiling Stitt and Walters, all the better.
Too bad, as a proponent of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” he can’t wait to throw Oklahomans off Medicaid, while he and others of his financial standing receive a tax cut they absolutely don’t need.
In fact, they ought to pay more.
He’s still good on the law, though.
Small favors.
You need to learn your history!