A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, agreed with a lower court that the central claim in Connecticut's 2005 lawsuit was premature because the U.S. secretary of education had not taken any enforcement action against the state.
Which would mean...they should skip the testing, and see if the federal government tries to enforce it, and then sue on the basis of an unfunded mandate? Is it not really a mandate if no one has forced the government to, well, mandate it?
2 comments:
In general if you can't show you've been adversely affected then you can't sue. Ultimately I think that's what the court is trying to say in denying the appeal. Until Connecticut can show a negative impact they're going to run into a problem.
The Supreme Court will never listen to this case. The consolidation of authority over education in the United States into one central authority is a standard part of the conservative agenda, and the Supreme Court is thoroughly routed in the conservative agenda. The more centralized the authority, the easier it is to privatize since you don't have to deal with thousands of local public officials.
In general if you can't show you've been adversely affected then you can't sue. Ultimately I think that's what the court is trying to say in denying the appeal. Until Connecticut can show a negative impact they're going to run into a problem.
The Supreme Court will never listen to this case. The consolidation of authority over education in the United States into one central authority is a standard part of the conservative agenda, and the Supreme Court is thoroughly routed in the conservative agenda. The more centralized the authority, the easier it is to privatize since you don't have to deal with thousands of local public officials.
Post a Comment