<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Another Horrific Decision By an Agenda-Driven Plurality of the Supreme Court	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://halifaxlaw.com/another-horrific-decision-by-an-agenda-driven-plurality-of-the-supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://halifaxlaw.com/another-horrific-decision-by-an-agenda-driven-plurality-of-the-supreme-court/</link>
	<description>Lawyer / Barrister / Solicitor</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:35:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: DLC		</title>
		<link>https://halifaxlaw.com/another-horrific-decision-by-an-agenda-driven-plurality-of-the-supreme-court/#comment-65</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DLC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://halifaxlaw.com/?p=491#comment-65</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Allow me to give you some music to go with the stained glass  


Chag Sameach 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HANu1pTA4&#038;feature=related]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allow me to give you some music to go with the stained glass  </p>
<p>Chag Sameach </p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HANu1pTA4&#038;feature=related" rel="nofollow ugc external noopener noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HANu1pTA4&#038;feature=related</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Derek Brett		</title>
		<link>https://halifaxlaw.com/another-horrific-decision-by-an-agenda-driven-plurality-of-the-supreme-court/#comment-64</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Derek Brett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://halifaxlaw.com/?p=491#comment-64</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Art, respectfully, I believe that you are missing the point.  First, I question your figure of &quot;2/3&quot; of the money being directed to secular schools.  Rather, I believe that the disproportionate amount would have been given to religious schools.  Notwithstanding, even if we were to adopt your representation, the provision of any money going to religious schools -- by your estimation, 33.33% -- constitutes a violation of the First Amendment&#039;s Establishment Clause.

Moreover, the issue in the AZ case is not whether this violated the Establishment Clause, but whether taxpayers had standing to sue for a perceived Establishment Clause violation.  Prior to this rather cagey decision, the answer would have been &quot;yes&quot; under the 40+ year old precedent in Flast v. Cohen.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Art, respectfully, I believe that you are missing the point.  First, I question your figure of &#8220;2/3&#8221; of the money being directed to secular schools.  Rather, I believe that the disproportionate amount would have been given to religious schools.  Notwithstanding, even if we were to adopt your representation, the provision of any money going to religious schools &#8212; by your estimation, 33.33% &#8212; constitutes a violation of the First Amendment&#8217;s Establishment Clause.</p>
<p>Moreover, the issue in the AZ case is not whether this violated the Establishment Clause, but whether taxpayers had standing to sue for a perceived Establishment Clause violation.  Prior to this rather cagey decision, the answer would have been &#8220;yes&#8221; under the 40+ year old precedent in Flast v. Cohen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: art goold		</title>
		<link>https://halifaxlaw.com/another-horrific-decision-by-an-agenda-driven-plurality-of-the-supreme-court/#comment-63</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[art goold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://halifaxlaw.com/?p=491#comment-63</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The tax credit allowed by Arizona benefits all STOs not just religious ones.   Something like 2/3 of the money raised goes to secular schools.
It would seem to me difficult to prove Arizona  taxpayers have been harmed by this tax credit any more than the taxpayer is harmed  by giving credit to say,  someone who purchases an electric vehicle.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tax credit allowed by Arizona benefits all STOs not just religious ones.   Something like 2/3 of the money raised goes to secular schools.<br />
It would seem to me difficult to prove Arizona  taxpayers have been harmed by this tax credit any more than the taxpayer is harmed  by giving credit to say,  someone who purchases an electric vehicle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
