Or that's what I keep hearing libs say to justify darn near anything, even abortion.. Well, chalk one up for the children in Alabama... er, I mean "the new confederacy where a bunch of white men are now going to take over black schools."


MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- Republicans dropped a legislative bombshell (http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/02/republicans_push_through_bill.html#incart_maj-story-2)tonight as they slammed through a dramatically revamped education bill that will give tax credits for families at "failing schools" to send their children to private school or another public school.

Lawmakers voted mid-day to send a school flexibility bill -- that would let school systems seek waivers from some policies -- to conference committee. The conference committee reported a dramatically different bill that included the flexibility measures plus what some lawmakers called school vouchers.

Republicans heralded it as a historic day for education and life-altering for children stuck in poorly performing schools. But tempers boiled over as Democrats called the maneuver "sleaziness" and a "bait and switch."

The Senate broke down in chaos during the vote with every senator on their feet and many shouting at each other.

"This is historic for the children of this state," Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, R-Anniston, said over the shouts of angry Democrats.

"You went behind closed doors... This is not democracy. This is hypocrisy," Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, shouted at Marsh.

The House of Representatives approved the bill by a 51-26 vote. The Senate approved the bill 22-11.

Gov. Robert Bentley is expected to sign the bill next week.

"I truly believe this is historic education reform and it will benefit students and families across Alabama regardless of their income and regardless of where they live," Bentley said in a press conference tonight.

"I'm so proud we have done this for the children of this state and especially the children who are in failing school systems and had no way out. Now, they have a way out," Bentley said.

A bill, originally written to allow local schools to seek waivers from some state policies and laws, grew from about eight pages to about 27 pages in the conference committee.

The move drew outrage from Democrats who said the plan was evidently in the works for some time.

"I've never seen such sleaziness," Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, said.

Rep. Mary Moore, D-Birmingham, as she was leaving the House chamber threw her hands over her head and shouted, "Welcome to the new confederacy where a bunch of white men are now going to take over black schools."

Republicans said the bill would free children from the bondage that comes with a poor education.

"For many of these children, what we are doing tonight is life-altering," Rep. Jack Williams, R-Vestavia Hills, said.

Cursing was heard in the legislative hallways as the word of the conference committee spread.

Apparently Democrats don't like when something gets rammed through, but that's not the point. Someone tell me how keeping children in failed public schools is a good thing?

Democrats are against freedom and personal choice, unless it is the choice of whacking a baby . They want to repress their own children so they can continue to confiscate those tax dollars. Next step is a law suit because they didn't get their way through the legislative process.

And with choice comes the prospect of a less than liberal indoctrination. Heaven forbid our children learn to think for themselves.

" Someone tell me how helping the children in failed public schools is a good thing"

It's not, but like the voting issue, you seem incapable of addressing the heart of the problem. All you will be doing is re- arranging deck chairs on the educational Titanic. Both sides have been guilty of educational ethnocentrism. All you are doing is suggesting a better way to perpetuate this problem.

Why do states allow some schools to fail in the first place, and what's this liberal indoctrination you guys are trying to cure?

" Someone tell me how helping the children in failed public schools is a good thing"

It's not, but like the voting issue, you seem incapable of addressing the heart of the problem. All you will be doing is re- arranging deck chairs on the educational Titanic. Both sides have been guilty of educational ethnocentrism. All you are doing is suggesting a better way to perpetuate this problem.

Ethnocentricism? I just want kids to learn the three Rs and how to think for themselves.

Ethnocentricism? I just want kids to learn the three Rs and how to think for themselves.

By turning school into a for profit business?

Address poverty and then changes will be made, not cost shifting to save broke states money.

You're content running them through the public system then steered to those for profit universities and their Marxist professors - if you can lower the standards enough to get them in.

As for dealing with poverty, the liberal culture/policies that put them there are going to keep them there. But eventually you guys are going to run out of other people's money to keep your growing welfare class dependent on you.

You're content running them through the public system then steered to those for profit universities and their Marxist professors - if you can lower the standards enough to get them in.

As for dealing with poverty, the liberal culture/policies that put them there are going to keep them there. But eventually you guys are going to run out of other people's money to keep your growing welfare class dependent on you.

Public universities tend to have lower fees that private universities. Private Ivy League universities have a record of high academic standard, but they also allow for 'politically correct' courses for those individuals with the right political connections who aspire to become part of the'ruling elite.

It is not the public system that is grooming ruling elites, it is the private universities. It is these private Ivy League institutions that is perpetuating ruling elitism. That's what is "keeping them there"

Our public system is grooming sheep.

Our public system is grooming sheep.

Your private system is grooming ruling elites.

Tut

You know ruling elites. Like a SCOTUS judge who doesn't see the problem of dismissing a law because stuff was written about it.

You know ruling elites. Like a SCOTUS judge who doesn't see the problem of dismissing a law because stuff was written about it.

You have a very limited view of his words. That "stuff was written about it" isn't how he will base his decision, Scalia will decide on constitutionality and I'm sure his written decision will reflect that.

Should he simply defer to Congress because they didn't want to be seen as racists? Is it constitutional to gerrymander minority districts, to divide us by race? Is there a really good reason to continue treating somes states differently, which was the gist of his remarks? Or are we going to rule SCOTUS by popular opinion because someone took offense to his line of questioning? Don't put the cart before the horse, tear apart his opinion AFTER it's given.

It seems these problems and ideas aren't confined to the US, here we have the plan put forward that aboriginal (black) children should be sent to boarding schools so they can learn away from their communities. This is the same sort of thinking that brought about the stolen generations here. But you see in these sort of ideas the racist overtones of saying that one class of people can only be brought up to standard by being instructed by another class of people

You have a very limited view of his words. That "stuff was written about it" isn't how he will base his decision, Scalia will decide on constitutionality and I'm sure his written decision will reflect that.

Should he simply defer to Congress because they didn't want to be seen as racists? Is it constitutional to gerrymander minority districts, to divide us by race? Is there a really good reason to continue treating somes states differently, which was the gist of his remarks? Or are we going to rule SCOTUS by popular opinion because someone took offense to his line of questioning? Don't put the cart before the horse, tear apart his opinion AFTER it's given.


The reason I have a limited view of his words is because the broader view looks even worse. He doesn't have a view. He has legal argument. In other words, his job is not to have a view and most certainly it is not to have a public view of the issues.

As you point out his job is to apply legal argument to the constitutionality of particular cases in company with the other SCOTUS judges. Not to poison the judicial well before, or if the case comes to the bench.

Tut

I think he delights in controversial utterings myself.

The reason I have a limited view of his words is because the broader view looks even worse. He doesn't have a view. He has legal argument. In other words, his job is not to have a view and most certainly it is not to have a public view of the issues.

As you point out his job is to apply legal argument to the constitutionality of particular cases in company with the other SCOTUS judges. Not to poison the judicial well before, or if the case comes to the bench.

Tut

Did you read the oral arguments and apply the same standards to Sotomayor ?

did you read the oral arguments and apply the same standards to Sotomayor ?

Exactly.

Speaking of being for the children, Massachusetts Education Dept has issued directives for public schools for enforcing the state's addition of "transgendered" to their protected classes. Those who feel strongly that their inward gender doesn't match their outward should be allowed to use their restroom of choice.


In all cases (http://www.gayly.com/tags/massachusetts-department-education#.UTTHaDcTQQk), "the student may access the restroom, locker room, and changing facility that corresponds to the student's gender identity," it said.

And if those 13-year-old girls feel uncomfortable around male genitalia in the restroom or shower, they just need to get over it. The guys may be all for having anatomical females in the shower, but that's as far as I'll go on that.


The guidance said some students may feel uncomfortable sharing those facilities with a transgender student but this "discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student." It urges administrators to resolve issues on a case-by-case basis, and recommends sufficient sex-neutral restrooms and changing area

There will be no gender specific activities, if a guy feels strongly he's really a girl he can play girl's basketball and vice versa. After all it's all for the children, "creating an inclusive environment for all students to learn."

What could go wrong?

did you read the oral arguments and apply the same standards to Sotomayor ?


I might. Depends on what arguments you are talking about.

Tut

Then you don't even know the context of Scalia's comment .

I might. Depends on what arguments you are talking about.

Tut

The transcript (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf)in question, Shelby County v. Holder.

Then you don't even know the context of Scalia's comment .


I haven't read the actual court transcripts until now.

There is a big difference when it comes to expressing a legal opinion and expressing a public opinion. As far as I can see Sotomayor is expressing a legal opinion in a court room.Unless you have something else?


Tut

Scalia was expressing a legal opinion in the oral arguments . That is the context . His point was that it was a safe vote for Congress to leave a statute that is of questional constitutionality in place rather than to go on the record for voting "against" voting rights.

And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.

That is a legal opinion and nothing else .