School Vouchers are Good :: Argumentative Persuasive Argument Essays

School Vouchers are GoodWise hands say you cannot predict Supreme Court decisions based on questions raise during oral argument, save the justices go-round on the school voucher question whitethorn prove an exception to that rule - as this essay lead demonstrate. take place advocator for each side respectively provided a textbook shell of how to argue, and how not to argue, before the High Court. The justices see their share of both types but rarely in the same case. Judith cut, assistant attorney general of Ohio, defended the Cleveland platform brilliantly. She was poised, calm, deliberative, and engaging. She listened to questions from the bench and fitted her responses within the doctrinal parameters of prevailing case law. Her chief opponent, Robert Chanin, counsel for the National Education Association, at one point or some other frustrated or annoyed almost every member of the Court, including those whose deem was essential to his cause. He was by turns rigid, hectori ng, and evasive, sometimes cutting justices off in mid-question(WCBS). On the merits, his argument was a one-trick pony Vouchers are but a backdoor transfer of government funds to religious institutions in violation of the brass Clause. Doctrinal secularism of this sort warms the blood at ACLU and teachers union rallies, but it exit not bear scrutiny in serious debate. Under the Cleveland program, the render does not distinguish between eligible religious and secular schools and has no control over where the money ends up. Parents and parents alone -- decide which school their children will attend. Chanins argument might have secured some purchase with the Court 30 old age ago, but no longer. The dominant constitutional tests of recent geezerhood speak in terms of government neutrality and non-endorsement. The Cleveland program was neutral, French said, because it gave no preference to religious schools, and endorsement was not at hack because tax dollars can get to a recipien t institution still after the independent, intervening decision of parents. Chanins only response was to assert without materialization that the carefully drawn criteria of the Cleveland plan were sham. But no matter how often he said so, it was strikingly apparent that most of the justices (even those presumably likeable to his side) werent buying his formulaic mantra. Justice Sandra Day OConnor repeatedly tried to activate Chanin beyond ritual incantation toward the specific facts at issue, but he rebuffed the invitation(Supreme Court). By refusing to concede even the slightest constitutional plausibility to the opposing argument, he essentially implied that much of the Courts First Amendment jurisprudence of the past 20 years was wrongly decided.