What racists think the Supreme Court decision means and what it really means.
The Supreme Court got it wrong and right when it over turned Montana's Supreme Court's decision in Espinoza v Montana. Wrong because Montana's court was correct that the Constitution forbids the funding of private church schools. Right because they stated that if the state funds private schools it has to fund church schools. Therefore, since the state CANNOT fund church schools per the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling should not be taken as a way of "working around" the Constitution to pass a systemically racist fiscal policy, it simply affirms that the systemically racist practice of funding private schools while leaving public schools woefully and chronically underfunded has to now end.
You can't fund them unless you fund churches and you cannot fund churches.
Every states mandate, however, is to fund their public school systems.
But note how the evidently quite racist NYPost makes it sound like they can expand their systemically racist school funding to include churches (which is pretty systemically racist as well, just ask any non christian, especially the native americans). We don't need to go back to those days. You can't fund religions, that's clearly against the Constitution. So as conservative Justice Roberts says in his decision: “A state need not subsidize private education,” Roberts wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
You can't fund religious institutions because of the separation of church and state. So you can't continue the systemically racist policy of funding private schools either.
Let's see which conservatives are racist and which are not. Let's see how racists on the right interpret this. The way it needs to be, or the way this NYPost article makes it sound.