Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
SUPREME COURT DECISION!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Martie" data-source="post: 85401" data-attributes="member: 284"><p>Here is the text of the Blog--it is very interesting to me. Justice Kennedy recused himself and the comments are enlightening. </p><p></p><p>Martie</p><p></p><p>UPDATE: The Courts brief order can now be found here.</p><p></p><p>Dividing 4-4 , the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an appeals court ruling that parents of a disabled child are entitled to reimbursement of private school tuition even if the child has not previously received any public special education services. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took no part, and the remaining eight Justices split. The case had been granted in February; Kennedy announced his recusal from the case only on Sept. 19, not long before the case was to be heard, on Oct. 1, opening day of the Term.</p><p></p><p>The order in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F. (06-637) has the effect of upholding a Second Circuit Court ruling, but does not set a precedent for other cases, even on the same issue.</p><p></p><p>If the Court wishes to take up the question again fairly soon, it has pending on its docket another Second Circuit case that is available for review assuming that there are no complications that would require any Justice to stay out of it. The case is Board of Education, Hyde Parke Central School District v. Frank G., et al. (06-580). The Court had considered both that and the New York City case at Conferences last February, before choosing the New York case as the one it would review. There was, of course, no explanation why they chose that one as the vehicle. The Hyde Park case thus has been on hold.</p><p></p><p></p><p>12 Comments »</p><p></p><p></p><p> 1.</p><p></p><p> Im having problems reconciling the per curiam order with the question, Why did SCOTUS take this case? Maybe Im missing something obvious, but it seems like the decision (specifically, its lack of opinion) neither solves nor clarifies any issues related to this case. Is it reasonable to conclude that by virtue of the per curiam decision, NYC Bd of Ed. v Tom F turned out to be a bad vehicle for the issues at hand, and as Lyle alludes to, SCOTUS has to go to a do over?</p><p></p><p> Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 1:11 pm</p><p> 2.</p><p></p><p> how can you say that the PUBLIC SYSTEM is inadequate when you never used it. Seems They just wanted a Private education paid for.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Lawrence sheehy October 10, 2007 @ 1:14 pm</p><p> 3.</p><p></p><p> A second, unrelated point to my first comment. I have seen recent allusions to the SCOTUS processes as exemplar of the Judiciary being the most transparent branch of government. In NYC Bd. of Ed. v Tom F., SCOTUS saw fit to grant cert, accept merit briefs and amici filings, and have arguments presented orally by counsels. In the end, however, there is no illumination there is only a terse order sheet with no indications of why or how. Theres no view into the decision making. There is no transparency, only opaqueness.</p><p></p><p> It seems to me a per curiam order on a case granted cert and proceeding accordingly could be viewed as either a disservice to the community, a cop-out, or both. (Again, if Im missing something obvious, someone please hit me over the head with a clue bat.)</p><p></p><p> Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 1:18 pm</p><p> 4.</p><p></p><p> As a parent similarly affected as the plaintiffs in this case, I am extremely frustrated that the Supreme Court has rendered itself completely ineffective to providing clarity on this issue and setting important legal precedent for other circuits.</p><p></p><p> The CENTRAL issue to this case was to enable parents, rich or poor, to seize the limited window of opportunity for children with autism to derive the essential benefits of appropriate early intervention. The child in this case in now 18 years old. I can only imagine how disheartened the family is that their valiant efforts on behalf of similarly situated families cannot gain anything from their marathon. The SCOTUS has done nothing more than waste the precious little time children with autism have.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 1:32 pm</p><p> 5.</p><p></p><p> You are missing something obvious. The Court split 4-4 and therefore did not make a decision. It is the courts practice not to release opinions explaining the views of the Justices on each side of the 4-4 split when these opinions will have no effect whatsoever.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Adam Smith October 10, 2007 @ 1:34 pm</p><p> 6.</p><p></p><p> Ok, thank you Adam Smith.</p><p></p><p> Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 2:02 pm</p><p> 7.</p><p></p><p> In response to Mr. Sheehy, this split decision does exactly that - merely reimburses a family without financial need for a private education they were forced to seek due to the inadequacies of their local public school sytem. You dont have to test drive a two-seater convertible to know its not going to meet the needs of your family of four. The family made an informed decision based on the needs of their child. To try out an inadequate placement would have resulted in irreparable harm to a child who has a critical need to get things right from the start. There is no window for trial and error with autism.</p><p></p><p> A thoughtful and thorough decision, however, regarding the unique circumstances of autism would have enabled the millions of disabled children afflicted with this devastatingly progressive disease to make an informed choice in a timely manner. Forcing them to fail first in order to pursue their federal right is an abomination.</p><p></p><p> The public schools are already paid for with tax dollars. Give those whose public schools cannot meet their obligation to provide a free and appropriate education to our children their taxes back to put towards a private education. If they did this, there would be no need for these kinds of cases. Until then, this is about much more than getting a private education paid for.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 2:02 pm</p><p> 8.</p><p></p><p> Does anyone have a guess why Kennedy didnt participate?</p><p></p><p> Comment by Michael Colasanti October 10, 2007 @ 2:28 pm</p><p> 9.</p><p></p><p> My guess is as the typical swing vote, he sat it out so that they would not have a binding ruling on this issue. This is a hot topic that tends to go straight down party lines. He wasnt willing to step out on a limb. Id prefer to think his recusal was based on something more solid, but with him giving no reason, that leaves it open to unfortunate speculation.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 3:14 pm</p><p> 10.</p><p></p><p> Emily Hill said:</p><p></p><p> Give those whose public schools cannot meet their obligation to provide a free and appropriate education to our children their taxes back to put towards a private education.</p><p></p><p> I think this is a great idea, and it would apply to lots of students who arent disabled. Sadly, many children are trapped in lousy public schools.</p><p></p><p> Comment by Stephen Jaros October 10, 2007 @ 4:17 pm</p><p> 11.</p><p></p><p> No Justice recuses him or herself from a case simply because they dont feel like ruling on it. To even insinuate otherwise is appalling. Justice Kennedy had a conflict of interest, either with one of the parties or counsel thereof. He need not disclose the exact nature of it. Its that simple.</p><p></p><p> Comment by James N. Markels October 10, 2007 @ 4:31 pm</p><p> 12.</p><p></p><p> Unfortunately, nothing is simple in the world of politics. Hidden agendas abound. Im not saying that is the case there, but lets not oversimplify. Besides, there could be any number of conflicts. Perhaps he has a child, grandchild, relative or close friend affected by autism. Doesnt everyone these days?</p><p></p><p> Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 5:20 pm</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Martie, post: 85401, member: 284"] Here is the text of the Blog--it is very interesting to me. Justice Kennedy recused himself and the comments are enlightening. Martie UPDATE: The Courts brief order can now be found here. Dividing 4-4 , the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an appeals court ruling that parents of a disabled child are entitled to reimbursement of private school tuition even if the child has not previously received any public special education services. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took no part, and the remaining eight Justices split. The case had been granted in February; Kennedy announced his recusal from the case only on Sept. 19, not long before the case was to be heard, on Oct. 1, opening day of the Term. The order in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F. (06-637) has the effect of upholding a Second Circuit Court ruling, but does not set a precedent for other cases, even on the same issue. If the Court wishes to take up the question again fairly soon, it has pending on its docket another Second Circuit case that is available for review assuming that there are no complications that would require any Justice to stay out of it. The case is Board of Education, Hyde Parke Central School District v. Frank G., et al. (06-580). The Court had considered both that and the New York City case at Conferences last February, before choosing the New York case as the one it would review. There was, of course, no explanation why they chose that one as the vehicle. The Hyde Park case thus has been on hold. 12 Comments » 1. Im having problems reconciling the per curiam order with the question, Why did SCOTUS take this case? Maybe Im missing something obvious, but it seems like the decision (specifically, its lack of opinion) neither solves nor clarifies any issues related to this case. Is it reasonable to conclude that by virtue of the per curiam decision, NYC Bd of Ed. v Tom F turned out to be a bad vehicle for the issues at hand, and as Lyle alludes to, SCOTUS has to go to a do over? Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 1:11 pm 2. how can you say that the PUBLIC SYSTEM is inadequate when you never used it. Seems They just wanted a Private education paid for. Comment by Lawrence sheehy October 10, 2007 @ 1:14 pm 3. A second, unrelated point to my first comment. I have seen recent allusions to the SCOTUS processes as exemplar of the Judiciary being the most transparent branch of government. In NYC Bd. of Ed. v Tom F., SCOTUS saw fit to grant cert, accept merit briefs and amici filings, and have arguments presented orally by counsels. In the end, however, there is no illumination there is only a terse order sheet with no indications of why or how. Theres no view into the decision making. There is no transparency, only opaqueness. It seems to me a per curiam order on a case granted cert and proceeding accordingly could be viewed as either a disservice to the community, a cop-out, or both. (Again, if Im missing something obvious, someone please hit me over the head with a clue bat.) Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 1:18 pm 4. As a parent similarly affected as the plaintiffs in this case, I am extremely frustrated that the Supreme Court has rendered itself completely ineffective to providing clarity on this issue and setting important legal precedent for other circuits. The CENTRAL issue to this case was to enable parents, rich or poor, to seize the limited window of opportunity for children with autism to derive the essential benefits of appropriate early intervention. The child in this case in now 18 years old. I can only imagine how disheartened the family is that their valiant efforts on behalf of similarly situated families cannot gain anything from their marathon. The SCOTUS has done nothing more than waste the precious little time children with autism have. Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 1:32 pm 5. You are missing something obvious. The Court split 4-4 and therefore did not make a decision. It is the courts practice not to release opinions explaining the views of the Justices on each side of the 4-4 split when these opinions will have no effect whatsoever. Comment by Adam Smith October 10, 2007 @ 1:34 pm 6. Ok, thank you Adam Smith. Comment by David Huberman October 10, 2007 @ 2:02 pm 7. In response to Mr. Sheehy, this split decision does exactly that - merely reimburses a family without financial need for a private education they were forced to seek due to the inadequacies of their local public school sytem. You dont have to test drive a two-seater convertible to know its not going to meet the needs of your family of four. The family made an informed decision based on the needs of their child. To try out an inadequate placement would have resulted in irreparable harm to a child who has a critical need to get things right from the start. There is no window for trial and error with autism. A thoughtful and thorough decision, however, regarding the unique circumstances of autism would have enabled the millions of disabled children afflicted with this devastatingly progressive disease to make an informed choice in a timely manner. Forcing them to fail first in order to pursue their federal right is an abomination. The public schools are already paid for with tax dollars. Give those whose public schools cannot meet their obligation to provide a free and appropriate education to our children their taxes back to put towards a private education. If they did this, there would be no need for these kinds of cases. Until then, this is about much more than getting a private education paid for. Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 2:02 pm 8. Does anyone have a guess why Kennedy didnt participate? Comment by Michael Colasanti October 10, 2007 @ 2:28 pm 9. My guess is as the typical swing vote, he sat it out so that they would not have a binding ruling on this issue. This is a hot topic that tends to go straight down party lines. He wasnt willing to step out on a limb. Id prefer to think his recusal was based on something more solid, but with him giving no reason, that leaves it open to unfortunate speculation. Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 3:14 pm 10. Emily Hill said: Give those whose public schools cannot meet their obligation to provide a free and appropriate education to our children their taxes back to put towards a private education. I think this is a great idea, and it would apply to lots of students who arent disabled. Sadly, many children are trapped in lousy public schools. Comment by Stephen Jaros October 10, 2007 @ 4:17 pm 11. No Justice recuses him or herself from a case simply because they dont feel like ruling on it. To even insinuate otherwise is appalling. Justice Kennedy had a conflict of interest, either with one of the parties or counsel thereof. He need not disclose the exact nature of it. Its that simple. Comment by James N. Markels October 10, 2007 @ 4:31 pm 12. Unfortunately, nothing is simple in the world of politics. Hidden agendas abound. Im not saying that is the case there, but lets not oversimplify. Besides, there could be any number of conflicts. Perhaps he has a child, grandchild, relative or close friend affected by autism. Doesnt everyone these days? Comment by Emily Hill October 10, 2007 @ 5:20 pm [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
SUPREME COURT DECISION!
Top