Reply #5: The bottom line here is that Rehnquist and the rest in the majority [View All]

[TaleWgnDg]

The bottom line here is that Rehnquist and the rest in the majority twist words to achieve their own end result. However, the constitutional bottom line is that public taxpayer's monies should NEVER fund religious institutions, p-e-r-i-o-d. And, here the majority in Zelman (SCOTUS syllabus text) say it's okay. WTF? Quite a slippery slope of subjectiveness, i.e., the justices on SCOTUS may twist public taxpayers monies to fund religion as per the justices own choice to do so or not. Since when is a personal agenda a correct analysis of constitutional law? Eh. Since the rightwingnuts have taken over the SCOTUS bench -- Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.