US (Supreme) court: taxpayers can't sue on faith-based plan

[orleans]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court
ruled on Monday that taxpayers cannot challenge President George W.
Bush's use of government funds to finance social programs operated by
religious groups.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court's conservative majority sided with the Bush
administration by ruling that a Wisconsin group called the Freedom from
Religion Foundation and three of its members had no legal right to bring
the lawsuit in the first place.

The ruling only addressed whether taxpayers can bring such challenges,
not whether the program itself violated the U.S. Constitution's
requirement on the separation of church and state.

The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed
to the high court by President George W. Bush, overturned a lower-court
ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Bush's other high court
appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, also joined the ruling.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01352900.htm

[Eugene]

1. US court: taxpayers can't sue on faith-based plan

Source: Reuters

US court: taxpayers can't sue on faith-based plan
25 Jun 2007 14:16:43 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court
ruled on Monday that taxpayers cannot challenge President George W.
Bush's use of government funds to finance social programs operated by
religious groups.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court's conservative majority sided with the Bush
administration by ruling that a Wisconsin group called the Freedom from
Religion Foundation and three of its members had no legal right to bring
the lawsuit in the first place.

The ruling only addressed whether taxpayers can bring such challenges,
not whether the program itself violated the U.S. Constitution's
requirement on the separation of church and state.

The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed
to the high court by President George W. Bush, overturned a lower-court
ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Bush's other high court
appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, also joined the ruling.

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01352900.htm

[B3Nut]

4. And off we go

in America, off to a new Dark Age, while the rest of the world becomes more enlightened and moves forward.

It delineates clearly who the real "activist judges" are...

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Double T]

7. The SCOTUS will be an ongoing enabler of the corporate, fundie,........

neocon rethug agenda. The SCOTUS needs TERM LIMITS.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Did the court say who *does* have standing to challenge them?

If taxpayers can not challenge the constitutionality of programs that spend taxpayer money, who can?

[ananda]

13. Oh dear.

That's bad, simply horrifying.. but not surprising.

[underpants]

14. Can't sue for information? or action? or stop action? anything?

They can't be sued at all?

:shrug:

[marmar]

2. Gee, I wonder which 5?

Stop this ride, I wanna get off! :scared:

[Kagemusha]

3. So uh, who can bring these lawsuits now then?

That's my question...

[SharonRB]

5. They also ruled against the Bong Hits for Jesus student

This will limit students' rights to free speech.

[stellanoir]

6. Separation of Church & State goes. . .

"POOF"

What's left to shred now?

[closeupready]

38. We already shredded the Geneva Convention, so let's see

what else we have lying around here

[stellanoir]

48. the constitution, the bill of rights, habeas corpus, the rule of law,

checks and balances. . .all toast.

there must be something left to shred.

e-gads

these bozos know no limits.

[Frances]

8. Now does everyone get why there is a difference

between Dems and Repubs. Gore would never have nominated either Roberts or Alito. And he would never have begun faith-based initiatives. There was a difference between Gore and Bush.

[RamboLiberal]

16. Exactly - one very big reason I'm still pissed at those

in toss-up states who refused to listen to reasaon in 2000 & still placed their vote for Nader. And for Nader for running in 2000 when he knew he had a snowball's chance in hell. If those in Florida(or New Hampshire?) who threw away their vote by voting Nader had instead voted for Gore - we wouldn't have Alioto and Roberts on the Court We'll have to live with this SCOTUS for at least the next 20-30+ years. Which makes it important that none of us sit out an election or throw away our vote in some stupid ideological protest.

[Tesha]

21. (Yes, New Hampshire. margin: ~4,000. Nader: ~9,000) (NT)

[ProudDad]

41. Please, please, please

STOP with this whining...

IT WAS MONICA'S FAULT...

Thank you...

[RamboLiberal]

51. Hope you were being sarcastic

Because despite Repukes dragging Bill Clinton through impeachment and trying to tar Gore with it as well, Gore still won the popular vote. I'm even madder that we still have that archaic electoral college system than I am at Nader and his voters.

[Paulie]

20. Um, the DEMS let them on the bench

They were too worried about keeping their powder dry.

[Frances]

24. Wrong

Why can't you see that the Supreme Court nominees come from the President?

Even if the Dems had had the votes to keep Alito and Roberts off the bench, Bush would have nominated someone just as bad to replace them. Have you forgotten that Harriet Meirs was Bush's first choice???

I think it's time the pro-Naderites took responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[Paulie]

36. Wronger!

Appointments are sent to the Senate to "advise and consent". That they made it though the Senate can be laid squarely on the Dems. They should have called the Republican bluff on the "nuclear" option.

But instead...

And for the record, I'm no Naderite.

Paulie, looking for a "Mr. Smith" SOMEWHERE...

[Frances]

37. "Appointments are sent"

You didn't address my comment about Bush sending one bad nominee after another.

If not for Nader, Gore would have sent honest nominees.

[Paulie]

42. Keep rejecting them

until you get the votes to progress. Is that not how it is to work? Just giving * a by on the horrible-latte because horrible-double-cold-pressed may be coming, how is that a difference? If anything, its easier to reject the even worse; there is no ambiguity.

[ProudDad]

43. He can send them up

until his ass falls off and NONE get confirmed without the Dems signing on...

[Frances]

54. Why do you choose to blame Dems

for something caused by Naderites?

[MaineDem]

22. Yes indeed!

The one biggest reason to have never elected GWB.

[DFW]

32. I think everyone always knew that, even Nader

It was just Nader's hot soundbyte, just Bush had his "compassionate conservatism."
They both knew it was BS--it was for the consumption of their supporters, not for
being taken seriously in the history books. Both of their supporters lapped it up,
too, so we can't exactly claim that they were ineffective.

It is also why so many impassioned pleas are made here not to stray THIS TIME from
voting for the Democratic nominee, and there will always be some who will say that
it is not reason enough for them to vote for (whoever). I would never begrudge them
that right, I just hope there is not enough of them to make a difference.

Another Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito clone on the Court, and we might as well have
Tomás de Torquemada as chief justice.

[dkofos]

53. They got there with Dem support!!

[usregimechange]

58. Bingo

[EST]

60. The ultimate irony-well, one of them-

is that it was Cheney who made the selections, by selecting a field of fourteen "qualified" candidates for nomination which were then winnowed down to five.
When one examines the possible nominees, manipulation is evident, since those other than the final pick were so bad and had rendered so many high handed, defective opinions that they would likely never have gained senate confirmation, even with the radical conservative control of the senate.

When one considers the high-stakes gamesmanship displayed by the masterful selection of Harriet Myers, whose past is only now coming to light and who might well have gotten confirmed, if only as a counter move to point out the idiocy of the radical right posture, the recent confirmatory revelations buzzing around the co-president click into focus.

Cheney got exactly whom he wanted, without exposing his hand in the mix.

[closeupready]

9. Disgusting.

:mad:

[NoodleyAppendage]

10. When are they going to rule that humans are NOT a monkey's uncle?

I'm looking forward to their ruling in favor of using faith-based surgery to cure heart valves or holy water abstract for the common cold.

We have effectively shit all over the hard fought 19th century social advances made under Enlightenment ideals.

J

[closeupready]

11. they can take the presidency away from the popular vote winner - why

wouldn't they feel they can disrespect the consitutiton?

Sorry if that sounds harsh - i'm in a bad mood today.

[AX10]

30. I have some choice words to describe Mr. Alito...

but I won't use them because they would violate DU rules. I'm too in a bad mood today!

[Lars39]

15. Horrible!

:grr: :puke:

[xultar]

17. That is a fucking shocker. I hate these fucks. I'm movin to Australia.

[avrdream]

44. Already moved.

Yet I'm still very angry about what is happening in my homeland.

[xultar]

61. Where'd you go and can I come? Do they have stringent requirements?

[redqueen]

46. isn't aus nearly as right wing as this place?

they censor stuff like puritan mindsets are goin outta style down there

[jwirr]

18. How would this ruling apply to other spending? If they had said yes

would any taxpayer be able to sue the government regarding any tax supported program they did not like? That kind of ruling would be a nightmare. Every conservative in the country would be suing against all social programs. Was the point the use of tax money or the use of money for faith-based programs? According to the article it was the former - a very dangerous precedent to set in the long run.

I also live in a very progressive state regardless of our governor and we do use money for faith-based programs that can provide a service and follow the guidelines. For instance, Lutheran Social Services often provides guardianship services for people who have no one else.

[MindPilot]

47. That's the spin, but it's not accurate.

It not that taxpayer's money was spent on something a particular group of taxpayers didn't like. The suit was to stop the government from spending taxpayer money on religious programs which is a VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Now I don't particularly like my tax dollars going to build bombs, but I can't take that to court since there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit that. I do however have a right--enumerated in the Establishment Clause--to have my government refrain from showing preference to religion, in this case by financing "faith-based initiatives".

Deciding the case on standing was a total cop-out. They could've fairly argued faith-based spending doesn't constitute establishment, but--I don't think they are real bright constitution-wise--they took the cheap way out.

[jwirr]

57. Thank you. I agree totally. Just wasn't sure what was at stack here.

[beyurslf]

19. delete

[zyguh]

23. Right, the issue was WHO could bring suit.

As much as I hate this one too, because all this administration has done is erode the separation of Church and State at every opportunity, the issue on this one was different. The group trying to sue hadn't been damaged in any way, other than feeling like their taxes were being spent in a way they didn't like. And every tax payer has at least ONE government program they don't want their taxes spent on, so if being a taxpayer was the sole grounds required to bring a lawsuit then the court systems would shut down almost overnight because millions of suits would get filed...

If a member of the group that was trying to sue went to the faith based group and tried to get help and was turned away because of his religion, THEN they WOULD have grounds to sue. If the religious groups are taking tax money and then refusing to use that money in an equal way for all Americans regardless of religion, race, whatever, then there is grounds for a lawsuit at that point.

BUT as near as I can tell in this case a bunch of people got together and started a group for the express purpose of suing a religious group that got government money to provide some social services. There wasn't a legitimate complaint because none of the people bringing the suit had suffered in any way at the hands of the faith based group. I think that if someone can show they did suffer damages at the hands of a faith based group refusing them service on religious grounds then the whole thing CAN be brought to court and challenged. But as long as no faith based group discriminates then the courts will just say that any religious group can apply for the same funding so it isn't picking one group over another, etc. If the Wiccans, the Pagans, or the Satanist would build a hospital then they could apply for government money to add social programs to their hospital outpatient services too, blah, blah, blah.

Its like that guy that sues every couple of years because he is an Atheist and he doesn't want his daughter to have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in her school. Thats great, but you can just tell her not to say it as her parent,and since his daughter has never been suspended or expelled for refusing to say it the whole thing gets on this huge merry-go-round of who can sue whom and when, etc. etc. He sues for the wrong reasons.

If the guy would just sue over the act of Congress that was passed in the 50's that inserted the words "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the first place not being constitutional he would win, the words "under God" would have to be removed and then school kids everywhere could start reciting the ORIGINAL pledge of allegiance in school every day with no problems whatsoever. And when a bunch of them defiantly chanted "UNDER GOD" at the appropriate time and ended up getting suspended or expelled the school could site the Bong Hits for Jesus Supreme Court ruling as their legal grounds for suspending those kids and their disruptive speech in school, and we could all just laugh our asses off....

If the faith based groups ARE providing legitimate services that are available to EVERYONE of any religion without restriction I don't see how a lawsuit can be brought against them. I see WHY one should be brought, if nothing else but from a purely religious perspective.....I mean, doing charitable works means you spend YOUR money, you sacrifice things of YOUR own, in order to make the world better. It doesn't mean you use other peoples money to help the poor, and feed the hungry. Its the height of hypocrisy that Church groups are running around saying "Jesus said to feed the hungry and care for the poor and heal the sick. We need government money to do all those things, so the government needs to pony up the moola. Whats that? OUR OWN MONEY? Oh hell no! We aren't wasting a penny of our own hard earned money on feeding those sick homeless bums! Those worthless bastards need to get jobs!"

Any Christian religious group taking tax payer money to pay for ANYTHING is such HYPOCRISY and goes against the very base of what the religion is supposed to be. You give up things of YOUR OWN, you share YOUR OWN good fortune with the less fortunate, You give thanks for the things God gave you in your life by sharing them and using WHAT YOU HAVE to help other and make the world a better place. You don't refuse to give from your own storehouse and ask the government to supply you with money, and you certainly don't take that money, set up some programs and start making a profit off of it. Thats the worst part of this for these faith based groups. They set these programs up and start using the money to PAY administrators and others to run those programs so these "good Christian" men and women are using the money that is supposed to be helping other to instead help themselves get nice salaries, etc.

All these faith based groups that are taking tax money, everyone of them, if they are right about the afterlife, every single one of them are going to burn in hell forever. They better start praying that they are wrong, because if it turns out they are right they are gonna have A LOT to answer for when Jesus comes back.

[treestar]

49. Thanks for the breath of sanity here

It would take someone who applied for the faith based program and didn't want to hear any faith based crapola leveled at them during the time of the program to sue.

There is some law about taxpayer suits, though. But it's a very procedural legal question. Looking into that is not as much fun as declaring the separation of church and state at an end.

Sometimes even the rightwing judges make the right ruling under the law, and the result is not as bad as it sounds. Just doesn't lend itself to sound bites.

[Nikki Stone1]

55. Excellent post. Thank you

:kick:

[n2doc]

25. Supreme Court Bars Suit on Faith Initiative

Source: NY Times

Supreme Court Bars Suit on Faith Initiative


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 25, 2007
Filed at 12:34 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case ''set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur'' unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. ''Of course, none of these things has happened.''

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Faith-Based.html

---

Yep, another 5-4... Sure like keeping that powder dry....:sarcasm:

[yardwork]

26. I expect that Pagans will be getting their fair share any day now.

:banghead:

[flamingyouth]

28. Yeah.

Oh wait, according to our fearless leader, that's not a real religion. :eyes:

[AX10]

27. Sammy Scalito and Johnny Robbers will be...

the lasting legacy of the Bush junta!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. Well it's not as if things like this ever happen

Federal Grant for a Medical Mission Goes Awry

In theory, it was simple: Congress gave two decommissioned Coast Guard cutters to a faith-based group in California, directing that the ships be used only to provide medical services to islands in the South Pacific.

Coast Guard records show that the ships have been providing those services in the South Pacific since the medical mission took possession of them in 1999.

In reality, the ships never got any closer to the South Pacific islands than the San Francisco Bay. The mission group quickly sold one to a maritime equipment company, which sold it for substantially more to a pig farmer who uses it as a commercial ferry off Nicaragua. The group sold the other ship to a Bay Area couple who rent it for eco-tours and marine research.

The gift of the two cutters was one of almost 900 grants Congress has made to faith-based organizations since 1987 through the use of provisions, called earmarks, that are tucked into bills to bypass normal government review and bidding procedures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/business/13cutter.html?em&ex=1181880000&en=c2ce4ac92ddd87c8&ei=5087%0A

:banghead:

[Politicub]

31. This court has been bought and paid for by the right

This lurch rightward is only a drop in the bucket of what's to come.

[KansDem]

33. This is why you don't put the loser in the White House!

Hear that, Supremes?!

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Now might be a good time to

remind people that the number on the SC (9) is not specified in the Constitution just in case we may get a Democratic president at some point.


:think:

[yardwork]

35. Channeling FDR!

[superconnected]

39. Yes this is bad. We need a dem president and at least one of those

justices replaced, to just scoot by.

[ProudDad]

40. I heard about it this morning

So much for the separation of church and State...

[MindPilot]

45. RIP Establishment Clause

This issue of "standing" is a red herring. The real agenda is to completely undermine the Establishment Clause.
The Scalito logic--if you can call it that--is that the First Amendment refers specifically to Congress and therefore doesn't apply to anything the Executive does.

The idea behind any suit to address a BoR violation is not that any particular individual is harmed, but that the country and the Constitution are weakened by the violation.

In saying the taxpayer doesn't have standing because they suffered no demonstrable harm, effectively chills any First Amendment litigation.

Mission Accomplished.

[rucky]

50. Have taxpayers ever sued the state for anything?

Pardon my ignorance. If so, how the hell do they get organized and recognized by the courts? and why the hell can't we do it for taxpayer funding of a criminal enterprise of war profiteers?

[Khaotic]

52. Talk about BS

That is definate Bull Shit!

Bill Moyers and PBS did a program on Bush's fucking faith. It went through where the money goes and how FUCKING biased the money flow is toward Christian based faiths. If you're of any other faith the paperwork gets lost.

The entire department of faith-based iniatives is unconstitutional anyway.

Fucking dammit!

I'm my own deity. I say so and I can believe so.

Why the fuck are crazy people who talk to themselves getting my fucking taxpayers dollars and the fucking supreme fucking court ruling that no one can do anything about it!!!!!!

Shit!

This is bull shit!

It won't get touched by Congress because they are too spineless to do anything to seem un"God"like.

Embrace yourself people ... we are our own deity!

Fuck ... I'm pissed.

I firmly believe that science and the entire human race is stiffled by fucking religion and the fact that it seems to be instinct to create a deity to worship.

Did you see "Beneath the Planet of the Apes," the sequel to the original? The people were worshipping a fucking atomic bomb. How shocking is that? What kind of concept is it? It is speculated that left alone our species will find something to worship, it's natural, but our intellect should enable us to use logic to know the difference between reality and fiction.

Our hard earned money is supplying funds to fiction-based programs! While they might help some people some of the time, the numbers tell a different story. Most of the mega-churches out there give out less than 30% of their profits to charity, they suck off the rest like leaches.

Who knows how much they get through the government, money they're supposed to use to help the poor, but are instead using to influence elections.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[muntrv]

56. Ah the talibornagain in black robes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. Someone explain this to me:

If a taxpayer can't question this law, then who can?