"double taxation" -- NO such thing in this case, they are taxed (usually property tax) and CHOOSE (for whatever reason) to pay additional for private schools !

@FearlessFly You're right, it's not double taxation but it is religious discrimination.

People who send their children to private schools are paying for two school systems when they are using only one school system. That's the issue here.

@FearlessFly Legal thinking is probably the most difficult critical thinking.
Religious tax exemption is a problem but it's not an issue here.

@yvilletom YOU brought-up the issue when you claimed religious discrimination -- you (AND religion AND SCOTUS) can't have it BOTH ways !

@FearlessFly Ok, this won't be easy.

People whose children are in religious schools are being discriminated against on religious grounds.

People whose children are in non-religious private schools are not.

Both sets of parents are paying for two systems and using only one.

Religion has put this case in the news but this case is going to be applied to both sets of parents.

@yvilletom CAREFULLY worded to EVADE the issue that YOU brought-up -- religious discrimination -- which is exactly what tax EXEMPTION is !
SCOTUS (and you) are "righting one wrong" while ignoring the other !

@FearlessFly

You say tax exemption is religious discrimination. What does the SCOTUS majority say? What do the dissents say?

Do a search on "scotus espinoza text" and download the ruling and the dissents. I've been reading them as time permits.

if people CHOOSE to send their kids to a private school, that's their choice. if people CHOICE to send their kids to private religious school, that's their choice. spending our public money for a private school, especially a tax exempt, so called, religious school, is absurd. and, most of those other private schools, are FOR PROFIT charter schools. haven't you read how corrupt that system is already. how many take the money, and don't even provide an education. some just take the money, and then close. many people already pay for public schools, thru property tax, that don't have children. i don't hear anybody fighting for them to get an exemption. this is all about profit, and pandering to suburban white voters. period. why do people get tax deductions for having kids, at all. they are a greater burden on the rest of us, not just for schools, but heathcare, social services, and on and on. if people CHOOSE to have kids, why should we have to pay more in taxes, while they pay less. a flat tax is the only way this is not corrupt. all these special interests, are simply self interest, while sticking somebody else with the bill.

@FearlessFly

The Espinoza ruling does not mention exempt or exemption. It is not an issue here.

This ruling rights a wrong which for decades required parents who sent their children to any private school — religious or not — to pay for two school systems, one of which they were not using. My father sent five kids to Catholic schools. For sixty years (five x twelve) he paid taxes for schools he didn’t use.

I’ve read many of your comments here. You understand scientific reasoning. Legal reasoning differs.

@DevilMayCare

Some private schools are as you say—corrupt. Some are not. The law that punishes corrupt schools does not allow punishing the non-corrupt schools.

Your comment raises issues not related to schools. They need their own remedies.

narrow cherry pick much.

. . . btw, in the previous TX case which was found unconstitutional, Roberts DISSENTED.

There are many previous cases were denied..to use tax money in private schools.. so I guess that Precedence isn't always followed'

@AmmaRE007 I'm not aware of anyone who claims precedent is always followed.

and, betsy devos was pushing it. private profit off our public money is their motivation. they just use religion to get the dittoheads in line.

Vouchers were not an issue in this case.