So the Supreme KKKourt advocates a Theocracy?

[marmar]

:argh: :mad: :hurts: :grr: :argh:

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

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.(from Reuters)


So what's next? A reinstatement of separate but equal? How about an overturning of women's suffrage? I REALLY hope Sandra Day O'Connor and everyone else who aided the appointment of George W. Bush is happy. But hey, this is the greatest democracy in the world, right?

[Beelzebud]

1. Thank the Gang of 14 for keeping that powder dry.

[whistle]

2. Fine subject these social programs then to the same rules, regulations

...and oversight as would apply to government departmental social programs which they replace or promote.

[Matsubara]

3. I wish you posted a link for this.

I'm dying of curiosity as to what legal grounds they based this decision on...

[marmar]

4. Here you go:

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

[Matsubara]

5. Thanks. Unfortunately not much there.

I can't imagine why they shouldn't be allowed to bring suit...

[merh]

9. Quick glance looks like SCOTUS

chose to take a jurisdictional duck rather than address the issues.

[merh]

12. Yup, they took a dive

rather than address the issues

~ snip~

"This case falls outside" the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said that the court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/17416291.htm

[sinkingfeeling]

6. So who the hell gets to challenge the constitutionality of this whole thing?

"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."

[malaise]

7. That is frightening

hault government programs and give the taxpayers' money to the party faithful. No surprise here.

[LoZoccolo]

8. It was the Naderites who thought things like this didn't matter. n/t

[magellan]

11. And the Republicans had nothing to do with it.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

13. What?

The Republicans nominated these justices. But Nader and his destructive minions said there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, so it is OK to let the Republicans win.

[magellan]

14. It's not the fault of those who voted for Nader

And Nader has a point where corporate control of the parties is concerned.

[LoZoccolo]

16. They made their choice, they can eat it now. n/t

[magellan]

20. Yeah, so can those damn Palm Beach County people

...who voted for Buchanan AND Gore. :eyes:

It's interesting how every chance is taken to jump on Nader while never addressing the 19,000 overvotes in PBC...or the corporate loyalists within the Democratic Party who hurt Americans just as bad as Repubs.

[LoZoccolo]

24. You're trying to distract from the issue that Nader campaigned...

...on the idea that there was not a significant difference. Either he was wrong, or you don't think that this ruling (and many others) are significant.

[Beelzebud]

28. Actually the only slight of hand in this thread came from you.

You're the one that brought Nader's name into this thread.

It's easy to see what your agenda is Mr. Fuck Nader.

Just keep pointing at Nader. While you do that the Democratic party STILL sits on their ass while the bush crime family is literally getting away with murder.

[LoZoccolo]

30. So?

Yes, I brought Nader's name into this thread. It was part of a specific statement I made, which no one has shown to be false, and frustrated you to such a degree that you broke the rules and got a post deleted.

[Beelzebud]

31. LOL

You mean it frustrated you to such a degree you went and tattled on me.

Blame it all on Nader. I'm sure it makes it easier when you look at what a bunch of cowards these washington dems have become.

[LoZoccolo]

38. I do not tolerate personal attacks.

If you think you should be allowed to break the rules of civility and this board, you can do it somewhere else to someone else.

[magellan]

33. I'm not "trying" anything

Except to get my opinion across. Nader wasn't wrong if he meant there's little difference between the corporate control of the parties. I don't know as I paid little attention to him back then, but I do know that's what he says now and I agree with him.

The rest of your post is a false dichotomy. Nader can be right and I can still think this ruling is significant and harmful, as I do.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Then don't change the subject. n/t

[magellan]

42. I didn't, I only replied to your attempt to shift the blame to Nader

"It was the Naderites who thought things like this didn't matter. n/t"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1178619#1178698

[LoZoccolo]

43. And I stand by that. n/t

[magellan]

44. And I stand by my reply to you.

So where's the beef? :shrug:

[Bandit]

32. You remind me a lot of Bush*

It is always someone else's fault...You sure love to hate.....

[Beelzebud]

15. Tell me this. If the "Naderites" were wrong, why didn't the Dems filibuster these nominees?

Remember the Gang of 14?

You can blame every Democratic party shortcoming on Ralph Nader, but the fact is that the Democrats REFUSED to fight these nominees. Had the Republicans been in their shoes, they would have filibustered.

The Gang of 14 sort of proves Nader's points...

[LoZoccolo]

17. Because they got a Republican president elected to make the nominations.

And if you look at our current pack of Supreme Court justices, there was more opposition to these Bush* nominees than there was for any of the liberal justices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court#Current_membership

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Do not ever personally attack me again. n/t

[Beelzebud]

21. Is that a threat? Does the truth hurt?

[The Stranger]

39. The Democrats were afraid to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, while the GOP almost threatens to

filibuster on a daily basis.

[Bake]

25. Remember the "nuclear option?"

We were in the minority in Congress at that point. Do you doubt that the Pugs would have changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster?

Bake

[Beelzebud]

26. It was a game of chicken, and the Democrats blinked first.

I honestly don't think the Republicans would have "pulled the trigger". Even some of them knew they'd be back in the minority someday, and wouldn't want that option to be gone for them. It was a game of chicken and the Democrats blinked first.

What is the use of protecting something you won't use anyway?

It's a bullshit deal. "Don't use the filibuster, or we'll make sure you can't use the filibuster."

Wow, what a great backroom deal there...

[Bake]

29. Sure it sucked.

But it wasn't so long ago that the arrogant Pugs were celebrating a "permanent governing majority." Given their arrogance, consistent over-reaching, and bully mentality, they would not have hesitated to exercise the "nuclear option."

Reasonable minds may differ however.

Bake

[WinkyDink]

22. TweedelDee and TweedleDum! Nader thinks he'll run again!

[The Stranger]

37. That is not true and you know it.

The Supreme Court is not invested with the advice and consent of the "Naderites," it is with the advice and consent of the SENTATE.

[magellan]

10. How can it be a democracy

...when we're being forced to fund the charities of a religious belief we don't all share, but not others?

It's a theo-corporatocracy, not a democracy.

[beyurslf]

23. Here are links for review of case law

<http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_157/>


<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_416/>

[melody]

27. Sounds like it's time to outlaw fundamentalism

If we can't keep them out of the country's business one way, we'll have to keep them out another.

[WinkyDink]

34. And the irony? The RW-ers aided herein HATE Catholics! (Too bad, Antonin!)

[Wiregrass Willie]

35. Next time Nader talks about running ...

Maybe someone will point out to him that had he not run in 2000, decisions like this would not be handed down. Thanks Ralph. Thanks for Roberts and thanks for Scalito.

[Beelzebud]

36. Nader was on the supreme court in 2000?

Funny. This whole time I thought the Supreme Court mandated who our president was in a bloodless coup.

Now I know the error of my ways. A two party system would keep things like this from happening!

[IChing]

40. Now we have a faith base justice system

Ruled by 5 catholic judges, the Jerry Falwell Liberty University Department of Justice,
and a psychopath born again pResident.