Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Walter Dellinger
to: Dahlia Lithwick

Vouchers Are Coming!

Posted Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 4:08 PM ET

Who are these people?

You ask what I think about the school vouchers case. Since the decision is going to be handed down shortly after 10 a.m. tomorrow (the last day of the Supreme Court's term), it would be foolish for me to comment on it now. But what the hell.

Whether or not this particular Cleveland program stands or falls, the decision will be a road map showing how to construct a valid voucher program. Even if a majority of the court were to find that particular program flawed in some specific way, the real story will be that—as a general proposition—it is not unconstitutional for a state to provide vouchers for school tuition in a program that allows parents to choose to use those funds at religious schools.

That seems right to me. I do not believe that the Constitution is violated when government includes religious institutions in otherwise generally available government-funding programs. Although it is unconstitutional for government to single out religious institutions for preferential subsidization, it is also unconstitutional for government to single out religion for discriminatory exclusion.

That does not mean that all voucher programs are valid; a court should be on the lookout for a program that is gerrymandered in its design so that parents are steered by the government into religious schools. I think the Cleveland program can survive that scrutiny, but there are some features that give pause. Participating private schools must limit tuition to an amount so low that it is hard for schools to participate unless their teachers take a vow of poverty. That's an exaggeration. But if Cleveland made the tuition grant higher, more secular schools might be created and make the range of choices more expansive. The present program, which consists mainly of failing public schools and Catholic parochial schools, in fact offers only a limited range of private choice.

The state's counsel, Judy French, did a terrific job at oral argument acknowledging that the program wasn't perfect—no government program is—but arguing that if the court would remove the legal cloud over vouchers, a greater variety of nonpublic schools would be brought into existence, expanding the range of genuine private choice. I think that position will prevail.

A decision favoring vouchers (with or without some program modifications) will continue what I believe to be an extraordinary Rehnquist Court record of having decided correctly every major religion case to come before the court in the last decade. The court has come to settle on a profound but simple proposition, most simply put as: "Government religion bad; private religion good."

What is extraordinary about this great record is that seven of the justices seem to me to be wrong about one of those two major propositions. The chief and Justices Scalia and Thomas seem blind to the harms of government promotion and endorsement of religion; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and (sometimes) Breyer fail to accord private religious choice the right to nondiscriminatory treatment by government funders.

The heroes of this story are Justices O'Connor and Kennedy. They have voted with Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter to sustain the proposition that it is no business of the government to influence how or whether people worship. And they have voted with the chief justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas for the equally important proposition that government cannot discriminate against private religious choices when it funds a general category of activity. Justice O'Connor in particular seems to understand the unifying principle: that government itself has no business attempting to influence religious choices—either for or against religion.

We'll know about vouchers soon enough. As we conclude our exchange, I'd like to know what you think the Rehnquist Court will be remembered for. And what about this book you are rumored to be writing on the court? You extensive cult following (which I know to include several former solicitors general) seems to think/hope that it will be such an irreverent look at the court that those of us who aspire to respectability will have to carry it around in a brown paper wrapper.

Regards,
Walter

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Walter Dellinger
to: Dahlia Lithwick

Vouchers Are Coming!

Posted Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 4:08 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Walter Dellinger is an attorney in Washington, D.C. and the Douglas B. Maggs professor of law at Duke. Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From the Fray Editor:

The Breakfast Table Fray has remained a shining example for all. The Table moved from discussions of the merits of Atkins to broader discussions of the nature of court representation. The Fray moved along with it. Several incisive debates about the nature of contemporary judicial federalism and Dellinger's "rule of three" have ensued. One of the best Frays ever began with Dira Necessitas's supposition that Lithwick would stop her Scalia-bashing—a harmless introduction to a fascinating juridico-psychoanalysis (or psycho-juridical analysis).

Notes From the Fray:

[Dellinger] has the good sense to understand that judicial overreaching is not a liberal or a conservative problem but an institutional one that should be resisted by everyone who has a shred of faith in democracy and, in particular, in the increasingly quaint idea that popular legislatures should make legislative decisions….

There is a longer-term insidious consequence of judicial overreaching, too, that takes the form of executives and legislatures dallying about nearly everything really controversial in the hope -- increasingly realized -- that they will be relieved of the hot potatoes by the courts, especially the SCOTUS.

-- Publius

(To reply, click here.)


I challenge [Lithwick's] shorthand characterization of that Federalism jurisprudence as "efforts at curbing congressional overreaching (often to give powers back to the states)".

That portrays some of the less controversial of the Court's Federalist opinions. But the most controversial and decidedly activist sequence of the Federalist opinions -- their so-called Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, named for the Amendment that they now admit does not say what they earlier said it says -- has nothing to do with Congressional overreaching. The issue in the cases I was referring to in the quoted paragraphs above (including the case that the Court agreed this morning to hear) and which I believe Dellinger was referring to did not concern federal legislation whose purpose was to usurp for the federal government powers traditionally held by the states. The statutes at issue have broad applicability not just to state governments but to private entities also.

The Court's conservative narrow majority says the Constitution protects states from being subject to such legislation, this notwithstanding their recent acknowledgment that the text of the Constitution actually contains no such protection.

-- Beverly Mann

(To reply, click here.)


Let's apply Dellinger's analysis to Castillo's streak. The reason that the "Latin American record" was noted and celebrated was that it matters enormously to an important group of baseball fans - Latin Americans in their native countries. Prowess in baseball is an important signal to many in those countries that they belong (maybe more important than prowess in soccer, because the Dominican Republic et al. have great success in placing players in the best professional baseball league). That's why people in Latin American countries know which Latin American players have the most career hits, career wins, the best batting average, etc. Until they stop paying attention to the success of Latin American players compared to other Latin American players, then it's reasonable for baseball to do so, even under Dellinger's analysis.

Besides, it's good marketing.

-- randy khan

(To reply, click here.)

(7/25)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
In Palin's Defense
Telnaes Animation | John McCain makes a case for his running mate's foreign policy expertise.
Editorial: Sarah vs. Big Oil