{"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。
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.