Trump has a really stupid idea (OK, he has lots of stupid ideas, but one in particular) about giving all the grants currently going to Harvard to tech. schools instead.

Now, money for vocational training is a Good Thing, and Robert Reich has a good take on that.  I was a really crappy student (mostly because I was lazy…I’m not proud of that, but facts are facts), and my highest academic credential is an Associate Degree in Electronic Technology from a proprietary technical school.  It was during my time there that I discovered computer programming, and I still remember the PDP-8 machine language. 😎

But that’s not anything that Trump cares about.  He’s just lashing out like a 2-year-old because Harvard told him “no”.  There are some signs that folks are beginning to see that, and we can hope that that’ll make a difference in the mid-terms next year—if we still have elections by then.

I thought I’d check out SCOTUSblog and, just by chance, got into a live blog of the court releasing opinions.

There were two opinions released, and one might be interesting to folks who read FtB.  In the matter of the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that you can’t have explicitly religious charter schools¹, with Justice Barrett recused², the SCOTUS vote was 4-4, so the Oklahoma ruling was not overturned.

This doesn’t set a precedent anywhere except Oklahoma, so it can come back to the Supreme Count.  It was just one of those one-sentence statements that doesn’t say who voted which way; but there was some speculation on the live blog that maybe it was Roberts who voted with the liberals to just kick the can down the road yet again.

---

¹“Charter schools” are public schools supported by our tax money.

²Apparently, she’s a very close friend of a woman who’s a big proponent of using public funds for religious schools.

The one big ugly bill contains:

No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued…

If Robert Reich is correct, that gives Trump license to continue to ignore the judiciary—probably the one sentence in the bill that Trump actually cares about.

Is there a lawyer out there who can explain to me what the phrase that begins “if no security was given” means?

I woke up this morning to yet another message in my regular e-mail from the person who triggered my previous post of the same title; and it seems to me that this person needs help that I’m not competant to give.

I’ve banned that person from this blog; and I’ve deleted my original post and all its comments.  I’m not comfortable doing any of that; but this particular flame war is at an end.  I’ll try not to start another one.