quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
0-8, no less.
Seems somebody ought to wonder whether he's a good choice.
The frozen trucker dissent was pretty weird too.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I haven't had time to do any reading, and when I do, I probably still wont, but heres a start:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-827

its the ruling wherein judge Roberts' quote in the op was gotten.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone took the time to read everything, that they would find the integrity of the original source reporting the information somewhat suspect.

Perhaps. How do you feel about the integrity of the 0-8 ruling? Because that's the factual essence here.

Petitioner Endrew F., a child with autism, received annual IEPs in respondent Douglas County School District from preschool through fourth grade. By fourth grade, Endrew’s parents believed his academic and functional progress had stalled.

They "believed"? On what evidence? When did mere "belief" become sufficient to establish anything?

When the school district proposed a fifth grade IEP that resembled those from past years, Endrew’s parents removed him from public school and enrolled him in a specialized private school, where he made significant progress. School district representatives later presented Endrew’s parents with a new fifth grade IEP, but they considered it no more adequate than the original plan.

They "considered" it no more adequate? On what evidence? When did personal opinion become sufficient to establish anything?

They then sought reimbursement for Endrew’s private school tuition by filing a complaint under the IDEA with the Colorado Department of Education. Their claim was denied, and a Federal District Court affirmed that determination. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed.

Their claim was denied three separate times, twice by Federal courts, so Gorsuch's view was obviously not unique. And without a demonstration of need stronger than "belief" without evidence, I'm not surprised. Was there evidence? I don't know.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
0-8, no less.
Seems somebody ought to wonder whether he's a good choice.
The frozen trucker dissent was pretty weird too.

Did you disagree with the Sotomayor appointment? She was 2 for 5 in SCOTUS agreeing with her decision. One of the "smack downs" she received was unanimous, even.

I probably don't need an actual answer on the question.