One more thing that is NOT a Right.

[~Rocktar~]

DETROIT, Mich. - Few could dispute the importance of literacy. But children have no fundamental right to learn to read and write, according to a federal judge whose ruling in a closely watched lawsuit Friday left some disheartened and others raising questions.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III, in his ruling Friday, noted the importance of literacy.

"Plainly, literacy — and the opportunity to obtain it — is of incalculable importance," Murphy wrote in a 40-page opinion. "As plaintiffs point out, voting, participating meaningfully in civic life, and accessing justice require some measure of literacy."

But those points, Murphy said, "do not necessarily make access to literacy a fundamental right." And, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the importance of a good or service "does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental."

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/...e/69-569587369

[Astray]

I mean... the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy side of me is pretty sure this is an excuse to deny a demographic of people an education.

Thankfully the semi-sober side of my brain kicked in. This is likely for when your kid is such a shit head he's been expelled and denied access to a school you can't force him on others. That makes more sense to me than anything.

[~Rocktar~]

It's more along the lines that the state of Michigan can't afford to dump 500 million plus into the shit hole city.

[Astray]

It's more along the lines that the state of Michigan can't afford to dump 500 million plus into the shit hole city.

The lines quoted feel like false representation if that's the true 'aim' of the article, man.

[~Rocktar~]

The lines quoted feel like false representation if that's the true 'aim' of the article, man.

Ummm, what aim of the article? I picked the quotes from the article that summarize the Judge's position that it's not a right and why it isn't a right. The rest is why the State defended themselves as only one of the desired things was that the plaintiffs wanted at least $500 million to fix school buildings and that doesn't get into the rest of the issues.

[Astray]

Ummm, what aim of the article? I picked the quotes from the article that summarize the Judge's position that it's not a right and why it isn't a right. The rest is why the State defended themselves as only one of the desired things was that the plaintiffs wanted at least $500 million to fix school buildings and that doesn't get into the rest of the issues.

If you had said any of that instead of debilitating your topic with that title and gave more than a link, I would have totally bothered to click the link and read but like... your opinion looked pretty clear based on the title and a single response into the topic.

Feels weird, bro.

[~Rocktar~]

If you had said any of that instead of debilitating your topic with that title and gave more than a link, I would have totally bothered to click the link and read but like... your opinion looked pretty clear based on the title and a single response into the topic.

Feels weird, bro.

Translation, "I'm too lazy to read a link, assumed an incorrect position/reason for the link and want to complain about it."

[Astray]

Translation, "I'm too lazy to read a link, assumed an incorrect position/reason for the link and want to complain about it."

Or alternatively, "The person posting the topic already gave a very lame, weak 'argument' and wanted to pretend they were actually intelligent by skirting the actual content of the article."

Or alternatively alternative, you're pretty downsy and I still decided to engage with you.