U.S. Supreme Court affirms firing of teacher Freshwater

[cbayer]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/10/06/Supreme-Court-freshwater-case.html

Columbus, Ohio • Oct 07, 2014

By Jack Torry



WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court approved a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that upheld a decision by Mount Vernon school officials to fire a middle-school teacher for not removing religious materials from his classroom.

Without any comment yesterday, the U.S. justices denied an appeal from the teacher, who had claimed his constitutional rights had been violated by the Mount Vernon school board when it dismissed him in 2011.

School officials had argued that they fired John Freshwater, who taught eighth grade, for insubordination because he refused to follow an order to remove religious books and the Ten Commandments from his classroom.

Originally hired as a Mount Vernon teacher in 1987, Freshwater had received positive evaluations from his superiors. But as early as 1994, he was admonished by school officials because he distributed a pamphlet on the book of Genesis to his students.

more at link

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Not what I expected.

I'm surprised by the Court's ruling, even if I agree on separation of Church and State grounds.

(Edit: Ah, I see, they didn't rule, they refused the appeal. That makes more sense.)

[cbayer]

4. I think refusing the appeal is possibly more powerful that hearing it

and ruling against him.

Basically they don't feel the appeal even has merit.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Such a refusal doesn't take all nine, though, right?

It means that either one or three of them didn't feel it had merit, depending on the circuit? Or am I remembering that wrong?

[cbayer]

6. That's a really good question and I had to look it up.

It means that at least 4 have to vote to hear it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. That makes it even more interesting.

Since it means that at least one of the 4 guaranteed conservatives would have voted against, probably because they felt the swing vote would swing in favour of equality. Keeping their powder dry for now, in hopes that Repubs will grab the White House and be able to replace one of the lefties before they try to take it down?

[cbayer]

10. Who knows what there thinking was.

I hope they are beginning to regret some of their earlier decisions about church/state separation.

[vlyons]

2. keep religious proselytizing out of public schools

that's what Sunday schools are for. More and more I see the RW fundamentalists as not understanding about other peoples' boundaries. It's really quite arrogant and certainly disrespectful.

[cbayer]

3. Agree and that is why I am glad that SCOTUS refused this appeal.

I think it sends a clear message.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. Given that the courts have uniformly said that teaching creationism

Is specifically intended to advance a particular set of beliefs in fundamentalist Protestantism, there is no way Freshwater would have prevailed. See, for example, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and, in particular, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982).

[cbayer]

11. Makes you wonder what the attorneys that brought the appeal

were thinking.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. That's the "you're all going to burn in hell" look. nt.

[okasha]

12. This comes at the same time as SCOTUS'

refusal to hear appeals by several states seeking to overturn lower court rulings favoring equal marriage. The upshot is that after an interval of bureaucratic gear-grinding, equal marriage will be legal in 30 states. The other 20 can't hold out much longer.

I did not believe this could happen in my lifetime. I'm both stunned and overjoyed.

[cbayer]

13. Not sure what's going on in there, but they seem to have changed tack.

I am also stunned and overjoyed.