goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 08, 2013, 12:58:17 PM
-
Yet more hearings in the KS legislature today to argue over how much money to allocate in the budget for education. Oh wait... what? This hearing is taking place in the KS Supreme Court? And seven justices are talking about this as if they play any role in the budgeting process?
Oh I get it now, in Kansas, the judicial branch not only interprets the law, it also makes the law when it comes to budgeting. Yes, that seems to right. I guess if Kansans disagree with how much of their taxes is allocated to education, we can always elect new justices in 2014. Amiright?
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
-
Constitutional question. Not of how much, but if the amt budgeted is reasonable. I mean, crazy KS could just decide to pull all funding and let the private market figure it out if it wasn't for the state constitution, right?
Also, iirc, the existing budget under funds the existing system by something like $160M. If they want to make the system cost less, fine, but address it through the Board of Ed first by establishing a new system rather than just not funding it.
I get you want to rail on some appearance of govt stepping in the way and out of their role, but it seems like this is checks and balances at work here.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
-
Good for the courts. I wish the KSC could just put the entire state budget together. They seem to be a whole lot better at it than the mouth breathers we have in office.
-
the federal government should run all of this anyway.
-
Don't we have some insane creationists in the legislature?
-
Don't we have some insane creationists in the legislature?
Yes. We even have a few on the state Board of Education, or at least we used to.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
You can rest assured that they are working on it.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
You can rest assured that they are working on it.
they already have. good luck to anyone who is mumped over by a kansas business after they get their boys on the bench. :lol:
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
You can rest assured that they are working on it.
they already have. good luck to anyone who is mumped over by a kansas business after they get their boys on the bench. :lol:
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
But because Kansas happens to be a largely conservative state with a conservative legislature, and the Supreme Court still has a number of liberal justices appointed by the old Democrat governors, you're cool with the court usurping the traditional role of the legislature in setting a budget.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
You can rest assured that they are working on it.
they already have. good luck to anyone who is mumped over by a kansas business after they get their boys on the bench. :lol:
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
But because Kansas happens to be a largely conservative state with a conservative legislature, and the Supreme Court still has a number of liberal justices appointed by the old Democrat governors, you're cool with the court usurping the traditional role of the legislature in setting a budget.
Legislators have to follow the law, just like everybody else.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
Last time this was in the SC, they said that the amt of money budgeted was not suitable and provided a rough figure as to what was suitable based on the system in place(via other govt components). That seems like they are fulfilling their role. Suitable doesn't mean "make it work". Their job is to settle disputes and challenges to legislation. If someone challenges the legislation that funds the school year, their job is to judge on whether it is suitable.
If KS doesn't want to spend this much money, change the constitution to say that Ed will take what they are given and shut the eff up, or change the Ed system so that it doesn't want as much funding. I just don't see what the problem is here with the court. It seems like they are doing their designed job.
-
the kansas constitution says something about adequately funding schools. courts have to interpret what that means. i thought you were a lawyer or something?
The KS Constitution says only, among many other things, that "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state." A few years back, the Court stupidly interpreted this provision as giving the judiciary carte blanche to decide whether education funding allocated by the legislature was appropriate, thereby effectively superseding the legislature's role in deciding how much to spend on education. This was not a matter of the "crazy" KS legislature refusing to fund public schools - only to what amount - and the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it.
So now they're hip deep in it, the lawsuits keep coming, and they keep having to legislate the issue. It is a ridiculous exercise.
that sounds awful. maybe the koch bros can buy enough legislative spots to change the judicial appointment procedure?
You can rest assured that they are working on it.
they already have. good luck to anyone who is mumped over by a kansas business after they get their boys on the bench. :lol:
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
But because Kansas happens to be a largely conservative state with a conservative legislature, and the Supreme Court still has a number of liberal justices appointed by the old Democrat governors, you're cool with the court usurping the traditional role of the legislature in setting a budget.
Legislators have to follow the law, just like everybody else.
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
-
sucks when a political minority prevents the tyranny of the majority, but that's democracy for ya sometimes. ha ha.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
-
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
That's difficult in Kansas because a sizable portion of the electorate seems very...simple.
-
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
That's difficult in Kansas because a sizable portion of the electorate seems very...simple.
Yeah. Somebody should really organize a "stay home, don't vote" campaign.
-
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
That's difficult in Kansas because a sizable portion of the electorate seems very...simple.
Yeah. Somebody should really organize a "stay home, don't vote" campaign.
They may stay home this year. I mean, the whole Sharia Law thing has been finalized, so what else is there to worry about?
-
Seems like the more ideal solution would be to let the legislature craft the budget, as has always been its power, and elect a different legislature if you're unhappy with how said budget allocates funds.
That's difficult in Kansas because a sizable portion of the electorate seems very...simple.
Yeah. Somebody should really organize a "stay home, don't vote" campaign.
They may stay home this year. I mean, the whole Sharia Law thing has been finalized, so what else is there to worry about?
Schools are about to get funded.
-
That's bullshit!
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
Maybe they just opened up the law books and compared what the legislature was requiring of schools while looking at the funds that the legislature was providing the schools with which to do that and decided that the amount of funding just wasn't suitable for those schools to meet those expectations. What does the percentage of the state budget allocated to schools have to do with anything? How is telling the legislature that they are in violation of state law saying "Yay - let's be legislators!"?
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
This would be equal to what you are taking issue with. In fact, it may be worse. It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution. Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.
There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately. The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics. In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again. If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I assume your expectation is based on the fact that this isn't what is really happening, right? Aren't you a lawyer?
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
This would be equal to what you are taking issue with. In fact, it may be worse. It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution. Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.
There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately. The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics. In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again. If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.
This makes no sense.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I assume your expectation is based on the fact that this isn't what is really happening, right? Aren't you a lawyer?
Neither does this.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?
Neither does this.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?
I like to take the stance that someone needs to be able to prevent Sam Brownback from burning it all down. If it's the KSC, so be it.
-
K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
Maybe they just opened up the law books and compared what the legislature was requiring of schools while looking at the funds that the legislature was providing the schools with which to do that and decided that the amount of funding just wasn't suitable for those schools to meet those expectations. What does the percentage of the state budget allocated to schools have to do with anything? How is telling the legislature that they are in violation of state law saying "Yay - let's be legislators!"?
Because rather than giving due deference to the legislative power to make budgets, the Supreme Court decided to be legislators and make policy about how much should be spent. Or rather, they said "well, we're not going to give you an exact figure - you're just not spending enough." :lol: This is not a situation where the legislature suspended all funding for education - it already devoted over half the freaking budget to it (now closer to 2/3rds).
This isn't matter of being a law - it's a matter of politics. Only a liberal lawyer (which I am assuredly not) would enjoy watching Supreme Court justices pretending to be legislators as they re-write the budget. It is an absurd process.
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
This would be equal to what you are taking issue with. In fact, it may be worse. It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution. Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.
There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately. The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics. In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again. If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.
This makes no sense.
Legislation is made up of a collection of words. Those words have meaning(both independently as well as in groups). The Supreme Court's job is to review said words and their meaning and interpret how we all(as citizens of the state) should be bound by those words/groups of words. One of the words in the legislation in question is "suitable". The dictionary defines that particular word as: "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation." So, if the funding isn't "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation" as far as funding Education goes, then the legislation that set the funding amount is not constitutional.
For those not grasping this process, please refer to elementary school civics.
-
K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.
It is you and your liberal ilk who are taking a partisan stand on the issue. I just have respect for the separation of powers.
-
K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.
It is you and your liberal ilk who are taking a partisan stand on the issue. I just have respect for the separation of powers.
This makes no sense.
-
You just said that they didn't rewrite the budget. They just told the legislature that their budget was unlawful and to try again. The percentage of the budget devoted to education is completely irrelevant. It's a matter of standards and the cost of achieving those standards. If the budgeted amount doesn't meet or exceed that cost, then the budget is unlawful.
-
Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.
Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."
Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.
This would be equal to what you are taking issue with. In fact, it may be worse. It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution. Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.
There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately. The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics. In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again. If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.
This makes no sense.
Legislation is made up of a collection of words. Those words have meaning(both independently as well as in groups). The Supreme Court's job is to review said words and their meaning and interpret how we all(as citizens of the state) should be bound by those words/groups of words. One of the words in the legislation in question is "suitable". The dictionary defines that particular word as: "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation." So, if the funding isn't "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation" as far as funding Education goes, then the legislation that set the funding amount is not constitutional.
For those not grasping this process, please refer to elementary school civics.
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
-
JFC, I think I just fell into a nest full of libtardedness. I can't keep up with the posts.
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
-
JFC, I think I just fell into a nest full of libtardedness. I can't keep up with the posts.
You are the only one referencing party politics here.
I am simply addressing the fact that they didn't step outside what their designed function is.
By the way, I am all for decreasing the Education line item in the budget, but only if it is done by addressing curriculum(method and content), standards, teacher review process, as well as facilities in such a way that we end up with a plan that is a responsible and realistic one that, when fully funded, takes less money.
Doing less is just plain stupid.
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."
The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced
Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.
-
Yeah, this is just getting Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) now.
-
Yeah, this is just getting Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) now.
because K-S-U is one of those "simple" kansas voters.
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."
The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced
Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.
Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."
The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced
Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.
Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?
They could just change the law. Why don't they do that if they want their school system to fail?
-
You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?
No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.
So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."
The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced
Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.
Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?
They could just change the law. Why don't they do that if they want their school system to fail?
What a stupid talking point. We're already spending 2/3rds of the state budget on education, and you really think the "school system will fail" if they don't get more? There is questionable if any correlation between pumping more money into public schools and improved education. And when the money is spent, it often goes to beefing up administration and bureaucracy as opposed to adding actual teachers.
Anyway, this is a policy debate that should probably be left to the legislature and people who directly elect them, dontcha think? No, I guess you don't. We got some libs on the court you see, and they're providing an important "check" by doing a little legislating themselves! :excited:
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I've always though judicial review is vastly overrated. I'm with you, toss it and lets let some hicks elected by the sod farmers in Jetmore decide what the constitution says.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I've always though judicial review is vastly overrated. I'm with you, toss it and lets let some hicks elected by the sod farmers in Jetmore decide what the constitution says.
You obviously don't get it. There are non-republicans who actually have the gall to serve on the bench. Can you rough ridin' believe that?!?!?!?! The problem is that if you don't use your judicial review to decide that the amount of money is adequate, based on the judicial review that says that education is taking up enough of the state's budget, well then who the eff are you to decide money matters as a judge?
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I've always though judicial review is vastly overrated. I'm with you, toss it and lets let some hicks elected by the sod farmers in Jetmore decide what the constitution says.
You obviously don't get it. There are non-republicans who actually have the gall to serve on the bench. Can you rough ridin' believe that?!?!?!?! The problem is that if you don't use your judicial review to decide that the amount of money is adequate, based on the judicial review that says that education is taking up enough of the state's budget, well then who the eff are you to decide money matters as a judge?
I don't think that makes sense.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I've always though judicial review is vastly overrated. I'm with you, toss it and lets let some hicks elected by the sod farmers in Jetmore decide what the constitution says.
You obviously don't get it. There are non-republicans who actually have the gall to serve on the bench. Can you rough ridin' believe that?!?!?!?! The problem is that if you don't use your judicial review to decide that the amount of money is adequate, based on the judicial review that says that education is taking up enough of the state's budget, well then who the eff are you to decide money matters as a judge?
I don't think that makes sense.
Good.
-
If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.
I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.
I've always though judicial review is vastly overrated. I'm with you, toss it and lets let some hicks elected by the sod farmers in Jetmore decide what the constitution says.
You obviously don't get it. There are non-republicans who actually have the gall to serve on the bench. Can you rough ridin' believe that?!?!?!?! The problem is that if you don't use your judicial review to decide that the amount of money is adequate, based on the judicial review that says that education is taking up enough of the state's budget, well then who the eff are you to decide money matters as a judge?
I don't think that makes sense.
Good.
K-S-U-Wildcats? is an excellent barrister.
-
What a stupid talking point. We're already spending 2/3rds of the state budget on education, and you really think the "school system will fail" if they don't get more? There is questionable if any correlation between pumping more money into public schools and improved education. And when the money is spent, it often goes to beefing up administration and bureaucracy as opposed to adding actual teachers.
Anyway, this is a policy debate that should probably be left to the legislature and people who directly elect them, dontcha think? No, I guess you don't. We got some libs on the court you see, and they're providing an important "check" by doing a little legislating themselves! :excited:
The school system will fail to meet its obligations as mandated by the state, yes. You realize that the state revenues fell by about 20% this year due to the new tax plan, right? Well, the cost of teachers, technology, and supplies did not, so education funding is going to have to take a much greater percentage of the state budget than it has in the past in order to maintain current levels of quality.
-
What a stupid talking point. We're already spending 2/3rds of the state budget on education, and you really think the "school system will fail" if they don't get more? There is questionable if any correlation between pumping more money into public schools and improved education. And when the money is spent, it often goes to beefing up administration and bureaucracy as opposed to adding actual teachers.
Anyway, this is a policy debate that should probably be left to the legislature and people who directly elect them, dontcha think? No, I guess you don't. We got some libs on the court you see, and they're providing an important "check" by doing a little legislating themselves! :excited:
The school system will fail to meet its obligations as mandated by the state, yes. You realize that the state revenues fell by about 20% this year due to the new tax plan, right? Well, the cost of teachers, technology, and supplies did not, so education funding is going to have to take a much greater percentage of the state budget than it has in the past in order to maintain current levels of quality.
Why should we care about quality education in the state of Kansas? What do they need to know that the Bible can't teach them?
-
What a stupid talking point. We're already spending 2/3rds of the state budget on education, and you really think the "school system will fail" if they don't get more? There is questionable if any correlation between pumping more money into public schools and improved education. And when the money is spent, it often goes to beefing up administration and bureaucracy as opposed to adding actual teachers.
Anyway, this is a policy debate that should probably be left to the legislature and people who directly elect them, dontcha think? No, I guess you don't. We got some libs on the court you see, and they're providing an important "check" by doing a little legislating themselves! :excited:
The school system will fail to meet its obligations as mandated by the state, yes. You realize that the state revenues fell by about 20% this year due to the new tax plan, right? Well, the cost of teachers, technology, and supplies did not, so education funding is going to have to take a much greater percentage of the state budget than it has in the past in order to maintain current levels of quality.
Why should we care about quality education in the state of Kansas? What do they need to know that the Bible can't teach them?
The evils of socialism? :dunno:
-
the bible is quite socialist :frown:
-
the bible is quite socialist :frown:
Well, yeah. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need school at all.
-
Its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) that there's a constitutional provision so desperately vague that it requires repeated litigation to interpret. But enough people thought it was a good enough idea to make it part of the constitution so clearly education is important in Kansas.
What's unfortunate is that none of this has anything with paying for education of children, but rather some the bloated bureaucracy that is the educational "system".
-
This article gives a nice brief overview of the history of this issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/kansas-legislature-threatens-showdown-with-court-over-school-financing.html?_r=0
-
This article gives a nice brief overview of the history of this issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/kansas-legislature-threatens-showdown-with-court-over-school-financing.html?_r=0
Great piece. Really shows just how totally out of touch radical Republicans are from reality.
-
Ruling tomorrow morning. Given current composition of court, I expect a ruling something along the lines of "you need to spend $500 million more on schools, we don't care how you do it - budgeting's your job, legislature!" :shakesfist:
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
-
Ruling tomorrow morning. Given current composition of court, I expect a ruling something along the lines of "you need to spend $500 million more on schools, we don't care how you do it - budgeting's your job, legislature!" :shakesfist:
That's a lot of bibles
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education. It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education. It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.
No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!
-
Hard to believe that liberals have such a stranglehold on the state
-
I keep hearing that brownback cut school funding, but I keep reading he wants to make kindergarten all day. Now the court is in charge of telling the legislature what to spend. What's going on :runaway:
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education. It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.
No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!
Yeah, it's sort of like slashing a school's budget and then telling them that they have to find a way to pay for all day Kindergarten. Only, the state legislature slashed their own budget willingly, so it's not really like that at all.
-
And by "slashing" they mean spending more than the year before. :shakesfist:
-
http://cjonline.com/news/education/2013-09-12/study-kansas-cuts-k-12-education-funding-fourth-most-nation
:dunno:
-
http://cjonline.com/news/education/2013-09-12/study-kansas-cuts-k-12-education-funding-fourth-most-nation
:dunno:
Oh - a "study" from a liberal think tank (the article forgot to mention that, I guess) says it, so it must be true. Here is the actual spending in KS per pupil: http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/SpendingPerPupil/tabid/1271/Default.aspx (http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/SpendingPerPupil/tabid/1271/Default.aspx)
2008 - $12,096
2009 - $12,631
2010 - $12,267
2011 - $12,226
2012 - $12,595
2013 - $12,776
Adjusting for inflation, that means that 2013 spending per pupil is approximately 6.8% lower than spending at its peak in fiscal year 2009 (when the economic collapse took its toll on state governments), and 2.4% lower than what we spent in 2008. And, of course, because these figures are per pupil and adjusted for inflation, we're actually spending a record amount in total dollars on education in 2013. But to libtards, this = THEY'RE SLASHING SPENDING!!!!! :runaway:
This kind of deranged thinking, by the way, is a perfect microcosm of why our federal debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing by leaps and bounds. Libtards are simply too stupid or dishonest to be trusted with the pocketbook.
-
Guys I don't think this K-S-U thing is a schtick..... :dubious:
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education. It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.
No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!
I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works.
-
of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on
-
LIBERAL KANSAS JUDGES! :shakesfist:
I know, right? It's just so quintessentially liberal: demand that we spend a crap ton more money but leave it to someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
I mean it is not like the KS constitution has a completely open for interpretation standard of the Legislature providing an adequate education. It is also not like the Courts are set up to determine the constitutionality of legislation that the Legislature passes, including funding questions when they pertain directly to parts of the state constitution.
No, our constitution has exactly the vague provision you're talking about. And if the legislature slashed the education budget, that might indeed be unreasonable enough that the court would be justified to step in. But when the legislature is already devoting half the budget to education, that might be a good time for the court to exercise a little deference, particularly when it's the legislature, not the court, that is left picking up the pieces of a busted budget. Again, however, liberals do not care about such trivialities. By gum, they're gonna tell the legislature to spend more money and let those jerks figure out how to pay for it! It's not the courts job to balance a budget - only to say that more money must be spent!
I don't think the judicial system works the way you think it works.
I do, and I ought to.
-
of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on
I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.
-
of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on
I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.
well that's good, because it would make those people look like enormous dumbasses
-
of all the things to complain about the gov spending money on education would rank number 1 in the steve dave list of dumbest things to compain about the gov spending money on
I don't think anyone in this thread is complaining about the government spending money on education.
Than you obviously don't understand the issue.
-
Huh. The Court appears to have reversed and remanded to the district court to re-determine the adequacy of funding, but just started reading opinion. Here it is if anyone else is interested. http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140307/109335.pdf (http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140307/109335.pdf)
-
Too long, dnr. Skipped to bottom
-
Brownback disagreed with the lower court's most recent ruling and has declared the Legislature, "not the courts, has the power of the purse and has, in fact, increased total state funding for schools every year during my administration." His calculus isn't limited to base state aid, but includes mandatory contributions to the retirement system.
-
Too long, dnr. Skipped to bottom
Can't really do that with a legal opinion. Details are in the middle. I'm about 2/3rds through and it looks like I'm right - the Supreme Court says it wasn't clear in prior rulings as to the exact "adequacy" test to be applied. It now clarifies that test, set out in a Kentucky case called Rose, and remands (send back) to the district court to apply the correct test.
However, the Supreme Court has said at least one thing that is potentially very harmful to the plaintiffs' case:
In the panel's assessment, funds from all available resources, including grants and federal assistance, should be considered. The legislative history of Article 6 reveals the intent to provide a system of educational finance that is sufficiently flexible to be able to utilize such sources.
This is the state's argument, and indeed, if you consider all funding (federal, etc.), school funding has barely decreased at all (see my earlier post with the numbers). The plaintiffs had wanted to focus only the Kansas portion of the spending, which has been cut more signficiantly.
We appreciate the panel's concern about overreliance on unpredictable federal funding. But there was an obvious increase in federal monies during the years at issue in this litigation, and the legislature was constitutionally empowered to respond with adjustments in state spending.
Ouch. Not good for plaintiffs. Potentially very good news for Brownback.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894)
-
You can absolutely skip to the end when you aren't being paid to read it and it doesn't effect a single business interest of you or your clients.
-
Looks like the court generally upheld the lower court's decisision on the seperate issue of whether spending reductions were equitably distributed among the school districts, but that's not as big of a deal (except for schools in Johnson County, I presume).
The key issue was adequacy of overall spending, which has been remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-determine using the correct test, plus guidance that overal spending is more relevant than just the state funds.
And the plaintiffs were denied their attorneys fee. :ROFL:
-
Looks like the court generally upheld the lower court's decisision on the seperate issue of whether spending reductions were equitably distributed among the school districts, but that's not as big of a deal (except for schools in Johnson County, I presume).
The key issue was adequacy of overall spending, which has been remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-determine using the correct test, plus guidance that overal spending is more relevant than just the state funds.
And the plaintiffs were denied their attorneys fee. :ROFL:
Te atty's fees was the part I read. Going to be a rough hit to the PPP at Hite
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-high-court-rule-school-funding-suit-22812894)
ABC is wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule that "the state's current public school funding levels are unconstitutional." It ruled that the distribution of reduction in cuts was inequitable, but could be corrected by the legislature. As for the more important issue re adequacy of overall spending, it remanded this issue to the district court, and actually provided some language that is quite helpful to the state (see above).
More media malpractice is trying to hastily report a legal decision.
-
But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U. YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR
-
In the panel's assessment, funds from all available resources, including grants and federal assistance, should be considered. The legislative history of Article 6 reveals the intent to provide a system of educational finance that is sufficiently flexible to be able to utilize such sources.
This is the state's argument, and indeed, if you consider all funding (federal, etc.), school funding has barely decreased at all (see my earlier post with the numbers). The plaintiffs had wanted to focus only the Kansas portion of the spending, which has been cut more signficiantly.
We appreciate the panel's concern about overreliance on unpredictable federal funding. But there was an obvious increase in federal monies during the years at issue in this litigation, and the legislature was constitutionally empowered to respond with adjustments in state spending.
Ouch. Not good for plaintiffs. Potentially very good news for Brownback.
Taking that stance seems bad for education in general. Why would a community ever pass a school bond if the state is going to count it toward overall education funding and respond with a cut to funds? It would be counterproductive. Plus, aren't most of those federal dollars used for noneducational programs like breakfast and lunch?
-
The KC Star gets it partly right, and partly wrong.
TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion Friday that the state’s current public school funding levels are unconstitutional. WRONG. The Court did not rule on adequacy of funding levels.
It ordered a lower court to review evidence to determine how much to funnel into the formula that splits state aid among local school districts. And it gave the Kansas Legislature until July to rewrite that formula, finding the existing finance rules are inequitable. Correct.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to district court for more review to “promptly” determine what the adequate amount of funding should be, but didn’t set a deadline for a hearing. Correct.
The court declared certain school funding laws fail to provide equity in public education as required by the Kansas Constitution and returned the case to Shawnee County District Court to enforce the court’s holdings. Correct.
The court further ordered the three-judge panel that presided over the trial of the case to reconsider whether school funding laws provide adequacy in public education — as also required by the constitution. Correct - and this is the most important point.
-
But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U. YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR
They're still legislating, dumbass. The Court denied the state's argument that this was a "non-justiciable controversy" and should be left to the legislature. But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
-
A bunch of students in Burlington don't get iPads like they would if they lived in the Shawnee mission district. A Wichita law firm has to try and collect a million dollar legal bill from said school districts
That's my head note
-
But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
congrats conservatives
-
Good for the New York Times - they generally got it right. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/kansas-school-spending-ruling.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/kansas-school-spending-ruling.html?_r=0)
Mixed Kansas School Spending Ruling Averts Constitutional Showdown
By JOHN ELIGONMARCH 7, 2014
Kansas’s highest court declined on Friday to order lawmakers to increase statewide spending on or public schools by a set amount, and sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration.
The decision averted for now the possibility of a constitutional showdown with the state’s conservative-led Legislature, which has vowed to defy court orders to increase funding.
But the state Supreme Court did order lawmakers to make constitutionally mandated payments to less wealthy school districts that it had been withholding. The justices said that the state had failed to provide equity in education.
Many conservative lawmakers had said they would not obey a ruling directing them to give more money to the schools, saying it was their job, not the court’s, to determine how to spend state funds.
The court rejected the contention that it lacked the authority to make decisions on school funding, saying that it has the duty to determine whether legislative acts comply with the constitution. “The judiciary is not at liberty to surrender, ignore, or waive this duty,” the decision said.
State leaders were still determining on Friday morning what to make of the ruling. “This is a complex decision that requires thoughtful review,” Gov. Sam Brownback said in a statement. “I will have a briefing with the attorney general and will hold a press conference later today. I will work with leadership in the Kansas Senate and House to determine a path forward that honors our tradition of providing a quality education to every child and that keeps our schools open, our teachers teaching and our students learning.”
-
But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
congrats conservatives
And to any other Kansans who aren't keen on paying higher taxes (ok, mostly conservatives).
-
But those damn courts were supposed to be legislating today, you lied to me K-S-U. YOU LIIIIAAAAAARRRRRRR
They're still legislating, dumbass. The Court denied the state's argument that this was a "non-justiciable controversy" and should be left to the legislature. But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
Every decision a court makes on a piece of legislation is the court "legislating". I guess if by "legislating" you mean the courts doing their constitutional duty, than yes they are "legislating".
-
But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
congrats conservatives
Throwing money at education has been proven ineffective. A moderate like yourself should know this. The more money earmarked for education, the lower our world standing in education.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frossieronline.usc.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fus-schools-vs-international3.jpg&hash=0a00ea32987050343576dba2680ab6141c116ada)
-
This one is probably easier to read for libs:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.moz.com%2Frand%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fspending-test-scores.jpg&hash=fbb3027891ae5778bed4b3239dad3b4ac5385996)
-
But the silver lining of this ruling for conservtives is that it now appears at least a little more likely that the courts are not going to order a massive hike in education spending.
congrats conservatives
Throwing money at education has been proven ineffective. A moderate like yourself should know this. The more money earmarked for education, the lower our world standing in education.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frossieronline.usc.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fus-schools-vs-international3.jpg&hash=0a00ea32987050343576dba2680ab6141c116ada)
That is pretty meaningless unless you subtract spending that goes to athletics from the US figure, though.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/
-
This one is probably easier to read for libs:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.moz.com%2Frand%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fspending-test-scores.jpg&hash=fbb3027891ae5778bed4b3239dad3b4ac5385996)
But the first chart was much prettier.
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANTS- For the purpose of carrying out part A, there are authorized to be appropriated —
(1) $13,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $16,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $18,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $20,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(5) $22,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(6) $25,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
Not sure, but it evidently didn't do crap. I wonder if they're including all the money we spent building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan? :dunno:
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
Not sure, but it evidently didn't do crap. I wonder if they're including all the money we spent building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan? :dunno:
I know Obama spends a ton of money on breakfast and lunch and we call that education spending. Maybe Bush started that? Either way, it's a joke that it gets considered as education funding, rather than welfare.
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
Not sure, but it evidently didn't do crap. I wonder if they're including all the money we spent building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan? :dunno:
I know Obama spends a ton of money on breakfast and lunch and we call that education spending. Maybe Bush started that? Either way, it's a joke that it gets considered as education funding, rather than welfare.
Agreed. Sadly, the free lunches being doled out at the schools is probably the best and/or only meal for millions of kids in this country each day.
-
What did George Bush do when he was in office to increase federal funding on education by that extent? It has to be more than just NCLB, doesn't it?
Not sure, but it evidently didn't do crap. I wonder if they're including all the money we spent building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan? :dunno:
I know Obama spends a ton of money on breakfast and lunch and we call that education spending. Maybe Bush started that? Either way, it's a joke that it gets considered as education funding, rather than welfare.
Agreed. Sadly, the free lunches being doled out at the schools is probably the best and/or only meal for millions of kids in this country each day.
Yeah. I'm not saying that they absolutely need to go away. We probably shouldn't include them in charts that show that we are spending ridiculous amounts of money on education and getting no benefit in the form of test scores, though. I don't like bundling spending on athletics into overall education spending, either. It would be nice if there were a source out there that broke down education spending on separate items like labs, salaries, after school programs, etc. so that the public could actually make informed decisions on what works and what doesn't. Of course our overall education spending is going to look completely ineffective compared to the rest of the world when we include things like meals and football stadiums in our spending per pupil and the rest of the world does not.
-
good to see these liberals running the state finally getting what they deserve.
-
I'm still waiting to hear about the evil liberal justices legislating from the bench.