June 25, 2007

Roberts court gives faith-based initiative a break

This is a disappointing setback, but some of the reports about the Supreme Court’s ruling have been misleading.

The Supreme Court on Monday said ordinary taxpayers don’t have the legal standing to challenge a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision dealt with a suit by a group of atheists and agnostics against 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.”

Actually, plenty of those “horribles” did happen. Thanks to Bush’s faith-based scheme, there are plenty of instances in which vulnerable people have been proselytized with public funds, faith-based grants have been blatantly politicized to further a partisan agenda, religious ministries are treated as just another special interest group competing for grants from the federal government, and extremist groups most American would find offensive have sought and received assistance from taxpayers. All of these things happened, and five Supreme Court justices just made it harder for Americans to challenge the practice in court.

That’s the bad news. The good news is the court case wasn’t explicitly about whether Bush’s faith-based initiative is constitutional, but rather, about the extent to which taxpayers can file lawsuits challenging government support of religion. It’s why some of this morning’s reports have been misleading: the Supreme Court didn’t give its blessing to the White House’s program; it just made it harder to file suit challenging the program.

Some friends of mine helped flesh this out.

The high court, ruling 5-4, rejected a case challenging Bush administration spending to promote the “faith-based” initiative using money from a White House discretionary fund. The court majority ruled in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation that taxpayers have no right to challenge discretionary spending by the executive branch.

“This is a disappointing decision that blocks the courthouse door for Americans with legitimate church-state grievances,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Taxpayers should be allowed to challenge public funding of religion, whether the money is allocated by Congress or the White House.”

“However,” Lynn continued, “it is important to note that this ruling applies to only a few situations. Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected.”

In other words, today’s ruling was bad, but it could have been worse.

It’s worth adding, however, that the 5-4 Roberts Court was awfully busy this morning.

EPA’s responsibility to protect endangered species weakened: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the federal government can avoid its responsibility to protect species under the Endangered Species Act by handing off authority to the states. The EPA routinely delegates administration of the Clean Water Act to states. The Court’s decision means the EPA does not have to ensure that states abide by the federal Endangered Species Act when they issue Clean Water Act permits. [National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife and a companion case]

Campaign finance restrictions weakened for corporate- and union-funded ads: In a 5-4 decision, the Court loosened restrictions on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, “weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.” The court “upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.” [Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right-to-Life]

The court also ruled against a student who unfurled a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner in school.

Ultimately, the high court sided with conservative interests across the board. In each instance, the ruling was 5 to 4, and the minority was made up of the same four left-leaning justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens). Alito wrote two of the opinions, and Roberts wrote the other two.

Had Kerry won Ohio in 2004, the right probably would have lost in each of these cases. I guess it’s one of those elections-have-consequences moments, isn’t it?

 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

20 Comments
1.
On June 25th, 2007 at 12:57 pm, David in NY said:

We’ve got a new First Amendment now. Congress can’t regulate rich people’s enhanced speech — by TV ad — even if allowing the ad endangers democracy. The government can, however, suppress a high-school student’s speech — via cheap banner — which they don’t like. Get over it, to quote Scalia, J.

2.
On June 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pm, Tom Cleaver said:

The next time some moron who voted for that halfwitted sonofabitch Ralph Nader tells you that Ralphie was right, that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats, point this faith-based decision out to the goddamned fool.

As to “gee, they didn’t say it was constitutional,” they don’t need to. You don’t need to change a law if you make it harder for an average citizen to use the system. Case in point that I am now personally very aware of is the “tort reform” that’s happened around insurance. A year after the accident I was nearly killed in, we are still awaiting some resolution while we ride the buses here in Los Angeles, and I got a lawyer the day of the accident. Nowadays, the rules have been set so that it is onerous for an attorney to represent a client in a “small” (read “average”) insurance case, and there are no regulations that require the companies to deal in good faith (so they don’t, surprise surprise) – the only reason I got a lawyer was because she’s been my attorney for 20 years and hates the insurance system (used to defend them till she couldn’t stand their shenanigans anymore). As I’ve discovered with my research, 20-25% of claimants eventually drop their case and walk away out of frustration, and the vast majority of them are people due compensation since the fault in the case is clear. Go google the words “delay, deny, defend” and then just read the cases that pop up. (Warning: do not do this if you suffer from high boood pressure and do not do it around children, since they will hear “bad words” when you do)

All you have to do is make it hard for people to use the system, and it doesn’t matter what’s in the system. And this is exactly what all these decisions announced today demonstrate that the Supreme Court is doing.

3.
On June 25th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, Steve said:

On the faith-based issue, it’s hard to disagree with the court’s decision. Program funding belongs in the Legislative arena, not the judicial. Just get enough votes in the House to stifle funding for the WH “discretionary fund,” and the desired results will manifest themselves quite nicely. If the WH can garner monies for the discretionary fund from private sources, then the case is moot.

On the endangered species issue, this one could get ugly. The WH persistently refuses to acknowledge—or even entertain—the notion that an American presence in Iraq does not foment insurrection. Turning this just a bit on its side, I wonder if Bu$hCo will still be trying to spin the issue when abandonment of federal endangered-species enforcement serves as a recruiting tool for domestic groups such as ELF?

On the weakened campaign financing, Dems have a choice—either exchange their cute-&-cuddly, fuzzy little campaign mittens for some brass knuckles and steel cojones, or get ready to become the minority again in 2008.

Bong hits 4 Jesus—what is that? If confronted with today’s uberschweinen ReThuglicans (those evil, subhuman critters who can truly make Pharisees look like Apostles), I could imagine Jesus asking if he could borrow a flame-thrower, some grenades, and a wheelbarrow-load of IEDs…..

4.
On June 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm, JKap said:

Re: Tom Cleaver @ #2

Ralph Nader was right. Just look at the capitulant, complicit Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Impeachment is necessary to preserve the Constitution from being set ablaze by Loyal Bushie Brownshirt Cabal and all the Dems can do is offer excuses. Disgusting.

5.
On June 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm, beep52 said:

re: JKap @ 4:

You or I may not like how Dems are handling things, but that does not mean there isn’t a difference between the parties. As Tom points out, Bush’s two appointments to the SC are but one among countless pieces of evidence of that.

6.
On June 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pm, Grumpy said:

I’m trying to figure out why Joseph “Bong Hits” Frederick appealed up the federal chain instead of keeping the case in Alaska courts, where he would surely have won. Maybe he figured he could get a national ruling with a case that surely seemed like a slam-dunk for free speech.

7.
On June 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm, bubba said:

“The court also ruled against a student who unfurled a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner in school.”

I thought the issue on this case was the fact that the student unfurled it outside of the school grounds on a field trip or something (the school officials would clearly have the right to restrict certain elements of speech on school grounds) and the issue was whether the school administrators had the power to restrict speech in school sanctioned events outside of school grounds.

In any event, this is also the fruit of the GOP Congress in the last 4 years of Clinton’s administration.

8.
On June 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm, David in NY said:

“Program funding belongs in the Legislative arena, not the judicial.”

Oh right. The Framers who denied Congress the power to “make [any] law respecting an establishment of religion” meant to permit Congress to fully fund a church, say the Catholic or Congregationalist, because it was a “Legislative” function. That makes sense.

9.
On June 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm, Zeitgeist said:

bubba, the Bong Hits case was on a public sidewalk during the Olympic torch run. The argument was that it was on school time – the students were released for the passing of the torch – and school supervised (teachers and the principal were present).

steve, you state that all of the decisions were 5-4; actually i think the Bong Hits case, sadly, was 6-3.

JKap, the fact that the Dems are weak in response or resistance to the White House is a very, very different creature than what Dems would have done if they held the White House. You can’t seriously believe that Gore would have entered/conducted the Iraq war the same way, that all of Cheney’s shenanigans would have been perpetrated by a Dem VP (even Lieberman), that Gore would have had a private meeting with Big Oil to write his energy policy, or passed a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% – much less appointed Scalito and Roberts. There really is no amount of spin at this point that makes Nader look any better for his unprincipled argument that gave the world the disasterous consequences of BushCo.

10.
On June 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm, JKap said:

Re: beep52 @ #5

The “difference between the parties” as you put it doesn’t matter a damn bit if our Constitutional Republic is replaced by tyranny now does it?

The SCOTUS just suspended the first amendment (what part of “no law abridging the freedom of speech” don’t they get?) and you’re worried about labels. Actions matter more than labels. Political parties don’t matter when tyranny rules the day. SO WHERE THE HELL ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON IMPEACHMENT? Dare I say that they are in on the cabal!

But we can have a more meaningful debate after martial law is declared and our Constitution goes bye-bye. Of course by then, we’ll have to debate somewhere in secret.

As Das Base expands and political dissent is equated with treason (because Jack Bauer did it), led by mouth-foamers like Buzz Patterson, and the psychological attacks upon the American public perpetrated by the NeoCon 9/11 Hit Squad to exploit and manipulate fear become more rampant and sadistic, political discourse will come to be redefined as Right Wing Authoritarianism.

Maybe then we can just all agree that our corporate/military government and its leaders are infallible.

11.
On June 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, bubba said:

“bubba, the Bong Hits case was on a public sidewalk during the Olympic torch run. The argument was that it was on school time – the students were released for the passing of the torch – and school supervised (teachers and the principal were present).”

That is it. CB, you may wish, if you care to, to amend the post to note that the banner was unfurled outside of schoo grounds but during a school supervised event away from school.

12.
On June 25th, 2007 at 3:02 pm, libra said:

The “difference between the parties” as you put it doesn’t matter a damn bit if our Constitutional Republic is replaced by tyranny now does it?

The SCOTUS just suspended the first amendment […] — JKap, @10

But that’s *just the point*! The composition of SCOTUS would have been different, had we had a Dem Prex instead of a dim one. With a different composition, the ruling would have been different, too.

13.
On June 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm, JKap said:

Re: libra @ #12

What a hypothetical waste of energy. You’re either pro-democracy and pro-choice or you’re a Right Wing Authoritarian.

Should we blame Nader for the spineless Democratic majority in Congress for the dereliction of their Constitutional duty to impeach the tyrants in the Executive Branch?

Don’t tell me, it will take patience… it takes time…. no, no… it’s politically unthinkable… no, wait… the dog ate the Dems’ homework.

14.
On June 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm, beep52 said:

re: JKap @ 10

I believe we’re talking past one another, here. The original comment had to do with siphoning votes from a major party candidate and excusing such a vote based upon the belief that there is no difference between the two major parties. Zeitgeist @ 9 cites a just few examples of how a Gore presidency would have been dramatically different than Bush’s. That was the point.

As for the rest, there’s no doubt we’re in deep crap and I too am p*ssed that one is doing much to thwart it. As for impeachment, however, do a little vote counting and I think you’ll see why it’s not being pursued. With the Lieberweiner off the farm, Dem’s don’t have even a majority in the Senate.

Dems may have run poor campaigns and have all sorts of faults, but the American people voted for Bush (or kept it close enough to steal) and more than a decade of Republican congresses. We all knew — or should have known — that SC appointments were at stake. What we see now is the result of our friends and neighbors allowing themselves to be duped into thinking there was no difference among the parties.

15.
On June 25th, 2007 at 3:42 pm, JKap said:

Re: beep52 @ #14

Ah, I see now. Since, in 2000, a plurality of Americans voted for the Loyal Bushie Brownshirt Cabal and another plurality of Americans voted for POTUS Al Gore, we should blame Ralph Nader who received 0 electoral college votes (and those who voted for him), and furthermore, we should discourage all Americans from thinking for themselves and keeping an open mind or voting with their consciences. Gotcha.

Sounds like something straight out of the dark grey matter of Karl Rove.

16.
On June 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm, Zeitgeist said:

No, JKap (15), I blame the idiots who bought the “no difference between the parties” line that Nader was selling.

That does not, however, make Nader any more noble for selling a bill of goods that, because enough were ignorant enough to buy it, swung Florida and resulted in BushCo.

One can dislike the two-party system all they want, it does not change the truly inarguable fact that a Gore administration would have done dozens of large things and hundreds of small things very differently than BushCo. Sure, they would have done some things the same. Sure, Gore would have disappointed many on teh left by compromising on many issues. But by any measure he still would have been more progressive than Bush. There simply is no other defensible position.

Nader lied. Idiots believed him. He had several magnitude more votes than the difference in Florida. He long ago traded in his consumer protection virtue for rampant egomania.

Could stronger Dems in Congress have stopped Bush? Yes. Curses on them. But you truly refuse to address the point that strong Congress would not have been needed had Nush never become President.

Nader played a role in that difference, pure and simple. And the difference was pointed out once again by today’s Sup Ct opinions.
I don’t know how he can sleep at night.

17.
On June 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm, Dee Loralei said:

Does anyone else remember when Roberts said he didn’t want to hand down divided opinions, that he wanted unamininity, or at least a strong majority opinion and that was his goal? That sure flew the hell out the window. Kinda like stare decises did. Sheesh.

18.
On June 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm, JKap said:

Re: Zeitgeist @ #16

Ok, ok… I will discourage all Americans from thinking for themselves and keeping an open mind or voting with their consciences. I also resolve to refer to them as “idiots” like Zeitgeist does. Gotcha.

And glad to see that you’re stooping to the level of personal attacks (e.g., “idiots”). Flush Rimjaughb’s phone lines are open! I’m sure the derelict-heads would have a good laugh at a Democrat like you whining about Ralph Nader.

Also glad to see that you have bought in whole-sale to the two-sides-of-the-same-coin, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated! It’s all a chess game and we’re not even the pawns. What have the Dems done to prevent this American Corporate Empire built on the backs of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. Military Service members? Pfff. EXCUSES.

You obviously buy this pathetic masquerade that is passed-off as our Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy.

However, it is my contention that it is the self-fulfilling, self-serving, self-perpetuating destiny of Big Corporate Government and we, its fit subjects, that only the candidates preordained by Big Corporate Media to be acceptable are worthy of the time and consideration of a large cross-section of the American people.

Now can the Democrats begin impeachment proceedings? Or is Nader’s ego preventing that?

NO MORE EXCUSES. IMPEACH ALL NOW.

19.
On June 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pm, andy phx said:

so, we the taxpayer, employer of the president, can’t challenge how he spens our money. this isn’t money appropriated by the congress.
where does roberts get of saying “Of course, none of these things has happened.”? what does he mean by ‘of course’? as if he’s defending bush. what a dick!!