There’s been much uproar about the Florida Supreme Court striking down vouchers in the state. With out a doubt, this is a serious blow to those poor and black (and most especially to those who are both).
Yet, could the FSC have decided the case differently? Obviously people who care about the children would prefer a differnent outcome, but it seems apropos that this is an attack currently being used against USSC nominee Sam Alito, that he decides case based on law instead of (desired) result. While I agree that the FSC decision isn’t so cut and dried as to be unassailable, but the objections I have seen are all about the bad results of the decision, not bad law. Unlike the FSC’s bogus decision in the 2000 US Presidential election, this seems well grounded in explicit state law (as opposed to the other decision which expressly violated state law).
This is a classic example of how “feel-good” law ends up yielding “feel bad” results when idealistic language meets harsh reality. The uniformity requirement is, of course, the essence of socialism and we’ve seen how well that works in the real world. If the people of Florida find this decision unacceptable, it seems to me that they should repeal the requirement in the state constitution that lead to it. To whine that the FSC saving the state from the voters is just that, whining. Conservatives should be using this as a teaching example instead of trying to get the FSC to perform yet another cover up of bad policy.