签名,宗派学校和法律

B. J. Dierenfield, David A. Gerber
{"title":"签名,宗派学校和法律","authors":"B. J. Dierenfield, David A. Gerber","doi":"10.5406/j.ctv1379722.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines and analyzes the five-year journey of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) from the federal district court in Tucson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Bentley Ball, the Zobrests’ attorney, and John Richardson, the school district’s attorney, clashed over whether the Establishment Clause permitted any government aid to a Catholic school. Many religious and civil libertarian groups—but just one national deaf association—filed arguments to sway the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority decision favoring the Zobrests, misunderstood the complicated function of a sign language interpreter to permit what he regarded as incidental parochial school aid. Rehnquist maintained the aid was permissible because the plaintiffs and their deaf son were its main beneficiaries.","PeriodicalId":355704,"journal":{"name":"Disability Rights and Religious Liberty in Education","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SIGNING, SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, AND THE LAW\",\"authors\":\"B. J. Dierenfield, David A. Gerber\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/j.ctv1379722.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines and analyzes the five-year journey of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) from the federal district court in Tucson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Bentley Ball, the Zobrests’ attorney, and John Richardson, the school district’s attorney, clashed over whether the Establishment Clause permitted any government aid to a Catholic school. Many religious and civil libertarian groups—but just one national deaf association—filed arguments to sway the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority decision favoring the Zobrests, misunderstood the complicated function of a sign language interpreter to permit what he regarded as incidental parochial school aid. Rehnquist maintained the aid was permissible because the plaintiffs and their deaf son were its main beneficiaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":355704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability Rights and Religious Liberty in Education\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disability Rights and Religious Liberty in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/j.ctv1379722.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability Rights and Religious Liberty in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/j.ctv1379722.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章考察和分析1993年Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District一案从图森联邦地方法院到美国第九巡回上诉法院再到美国最高法院的五年历程。佐布斯特夫妇的律师威廉·本特利·鲍尔(William Bentley Ball)和学区的律师约翰·理查森(John Richardson)在《确立国教条款》是否允许政府向天主教学校提供任何援助的问题上发生了冲突。许多宗教和公民自由主义团体——但只有一个国家聋人协会——提出了影响法院的论点。首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特(William Rehnquist)撰写了支持佐布赖特夫妇的多数裁决,他误解了手语翻译的复杂功能,认为手语翻译允许附带的教区学校援助。伦奎斯特坚持认为,这项援助是允许的,因为原告和他们的失聪儿子是主要受益者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
SIGNING, SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, AND THE LAW
This chapter examines and analyzes the five-year journey of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) from the federal district court in Tucson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Bentley Ball, the Zobrests’ attorney, and John Richardson, the school district’s attorney, clashed over whether the Establishment Clause permitted any government aid to a Catholic school. Many religious and civil libertarian groups—but just one national deaf association—filed arguments to sway the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority decision favoring the Zobrests, misunderstood the complicated function of a sign language interpreter to permit what he regarded as incidental parochial school aid. Rehnquist maintained the aid was permissible because the plaintiffs and their deaf son were its main beneficiaries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信