Taxpayers sue the government for its bogus "Faith-Based Initiative," arguing that just maybe the government [and perhaps this one in particular] can't be trusted with the notion that the it shouldn't be establishing religion. The ruling isn't even an affirmation of the idea that religious groups shouldn't be excluded from government funding. Nope. It's about ensuring the President can spend money any damn way he likes:
''Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected,'' said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Lynn called Alito's statement that Congress could step in ''quite incredible because the damage is done when the president acts.'' Lynn said Congress cannot anticipate action by the president that might violate the constitutional separation of church and state. ''We have the courts to do precisely this, rein in the president or the Congress,'' he said.
The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal money.
The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.
That earlier decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.
''This case falls outside'' the narrow exception allowing such lawsuits to proceed, Alito wrote. Congress must provide a specific appropriation, he said, and in the suit over the administration conferences the White House pulled the money out of general appropriations.
In dissent, Justice David Souter said the court should have allowed the 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.''
Finding the silliest legal logic to allow their friends on the Christian right to move the "conservative agenda" forward will no doubt become a hallmark of the new Supreme bobsy twins Roberts and Alito.
As has been well documented, the "Faith-Based Initiative" was a pile of crap designed to get Christianists to feel like their newly installed government loved them. Alito and Roberts came through for those who pressed so hard for their nominations to the Supreme Court. Here's Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council today:
Whether it's a case of faith in the public square, opposition to homosexual behavior, or simply the popularity of conservative talk radio, liberals are showing a disturbing tendency to try to stifle free speech for those who disagree with them.
Apparently Mr. Perkins, who can raise boatloads of tax-free dough for his tax-exempt organization by demonizing homosexuals in the cause of "Christ"; can himself go to church every day of the week; can send his kids to a Christian school where they learn, with government approval, that god created the earth 10,000 years ago and that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale before he [not the whale] was puked up on shore; can watch Christian television, read Christian books, and go to the cinema to view Christian films; can stand on any public street corner and shout to the heavens about his belief in god, is having his "free speech" threatened because a group of non-believers believe he shouldn't get a government handout simply because he's a believer.