Detroiters vow to fight after judge rules students have no fundamental right to learn how to read

[Derec]

Actually, I'm not so sure that that is the case being made by the plaintiffs here. They aren't arguing for a "fundamental right" under the US Constitution, but for a right to literacy under the constitution of the state of Michigan, which mandates that the state provide for an education.

But they are suing in federal court ...

 

[Copernicus]

Derec, you haven't bothered to look into the actual issues here, so I suggest that you read articles likes this: How Detroit students made a federal case out of the city’s broken schools

Well, the OP only linked to DailyKos so I was going by that.
This seems another biased article, but much better argued than the Kos piece. Still tendentious though.
And why aren't they suing the district? The problems are based in the district, not state-wide. And as I have already shown, Detroit has pretty high funding per student. If that is not properly spent (and it seems not to be), then the problem is in the district, not governor's office.
I think the left wing law firm representing the plaintiffs is doing this for partisan political reasons, which is sad.

I don't see any basis for assuming that the law firm is "left wing" or partisan in its motives. Nor would it matter if they were. The law is not about which side of the political spectrum motivates the plaintiffs and their legal team. It is about whether they have a valid legal claim, and that is for a court to decide. So far, they do not appear to be winning their case, but I suspect that the legal battle is not over yet.

As to your point about the problem being with the district and not the governor's office, that is far from obvious. The Snyder government has appointed the administrator of the district, and it did so in order to fix an allegedly broken system. The system, by your own admission, is seriously broken, so it is the state government that has failed by making the school district an "arm" of the state. Its administration reports to Snyder, not the locals.

 

[James Madison]

It seems to me that the government has "implied powers" guaranteed by the Constitution. I think that that also ought to extend to "implied rights" for citizens. Education is certainly a right, if the law makes education mandatory for children.

Well, the allegation here is "access to literacy" is a fundamental right. Based on the legal test for determining fundamental rights, the District Court ruling is not unreasonable and does follow the existing case law.

Actually, I'm not so sure that that is the case being made by the plaintiffs here. They aren't arguing for a "fundamental right" under the US Constitution, but for a right to literacy under the constitution of the state of Michigan, which mandates that the state provide for an education. The point is that the state assumed control of the district when it decided to appoint the heads of the local district. Otherwise, Derec's argument would make more sense--that the district should be sued rather than the state.

Well, not according to the finding of facts by the trial court. The trial court stated the plaintiffs are asserting a fundamental right of access to literacy under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Upon reviewing plaintiff's briefs, the trial court properly understood plaintiff's argument.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, not according to the finding of facts by the trial court. The trial court stated the plaintiffs are asserting a fundamental right of access to literacy under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Upon reviewing plaintiff's briefs, the trial court properly understood plaintiff's argument.

Yes, that particular court rejected the argument by the plaintiffs. In principle, his opinion could be challenged and overturned, but we'll have to wait to see how the matter progresses. I happen to believe that the complaint was correct--that this failure was the responsibility of the state government, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the plaintiffs mounted a convincing legal argument or even that one was possible. Sometimes the law doesn't provide adequate protection against incompetent government.

 

[J842P]

Well, not according to the finding of facts by the trial court. The trial court stated the plaintiffs are asserting a fundamental right of access to literacy under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Upon reviewing plaintiff's briefs, the trial court properly understood plaintiff's argument.

Yes, that particular court rejected the argument by the plaintiffs. In principle, his opinion could be challenged and overturned, but we'll have to wait to see how the matter progresses. I happen to believe that the complaint was correct--that this failure was the responsibility of the state government, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the plaintiffs mounted a convincing legal argument or even that one was possible. Sometimes the law doesn't provide adequate protection against incompetent government.

I'm not sure what sort of protection the law is supposed to provide against incompetent government. Barring things like fraud, embezzlement, etc. the protection against incompetence should fall squarely on the electorate.