Posted on 06/26/2007 12:54:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of taxpayers to challenge government actions as unconstitutionally promoting religion, throwing out a suit aimed at President George W. Bush's faith-based initiatives office.
The justices, voting 5-4, said a group of taxpayers lacked the legal right to sue over White House-sponsored conferences designed to help groups compete for social-service funding. The suit contended the sessions promoted religious organizations over secular ones.
``If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus,'' Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's lead opinion.
The decision insulates the federal government's executive branch from lawsuits centering on the U.S. constitutional ban on establishment of religion. The ruling also may shield states, although a number of them have laws that give their taxpayers broad rights to sue over public spending.
The high court said in 1968 that taxpayers could challenge statutes that directed money to be spent for religious purposes. That decision marked an exception to the general rule that Americans can't go to court to contest how their tax dollars are spent because they don't have enough of a personal stake in the outcome.
Divided Court
In today's ruling, the court barred taxpayer challenges to executive branch activities that aren't connected to a specific directive from Congress and are instead funded through general appropriations.
Alito wrote for only himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Alito said the court didn't need to reconsider the 1968 ruling.
Two other members of the majority -- Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- said they would have gone further and overturned the 1968 ruling.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented.
``When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury,'' Souter wrote for the group.
Executive Order
Bush set up the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives through an executive order. The program wasn't specifically authorized by Congress.
Bush in a statement called the ruling ``a win for the thousands of community and faith-based nonprofits all across the country that have partnered with government at all levels to serve their neighbors.''
The ruling reversed a federal appeals court that had said the taxpayers and the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation had legal standing to press their case.
``This is a disappointing decision that blocks the courthouse door for Americans with legitimate church-state grievances,'' said Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The case is Hein v. Freedom From Religion, 06-157.
and it was highly important that free republic was there to prevent his second nomination from getting ‘mier’ed down
Do I understand correctly that this ruling doesn’t really deal with whether faith-based initiatives by the Fed are constitutional, that it only says Citizen John Q. Smith is the proper source of such a lawsuit?
If John Q. Smith isn’t a legit source, who/what is?
Harriet would’ve been a cross between Sandra Day O’Conner and David Souter, IMO. Was Vice President Cheney sick or out of the country that week?!
One more reason to elect a Born Again Conservative President.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Another win for the good guys!
They’ll probably be his only legacy.
Born again Christian being the first President to explicitly call for a Palestinian state? Sorry, that doesn’t sound very Born Again to me.
Nor does calling Islam a “Religion of Peace”, nor does flooding the country with illegal immigrants and terrorists.
Yeah, make sure he gets no credit for anything if it makes you feel better.
Pray for W and Our Troops
It’s hard to give credit to someone who remains silent and relies on his lapdogs to be his mind-readers/syncophants.
Sorrry.... I played that game too long. Only to get insulted in return.
If the President won’t defend himself, dont look at me to defend him. He let this country turn against him. It’s his fault, no one else’s.
Pretty much.
Establishment clause lawsuits are just about the only kind of lawsuit where citizens have standing as taxpayers.
If John Q. Smith isn’t a legit source, who/what is?
You're assuming the law is supposed to make sense. Half the time, the law is just a trade-off of special interests based on who is in power at the time.
/cynicism as jude24 hates bar exam preparation.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Pray for W and Our Troops
With Harriet Miers? He was overruled by the President. After her withdrawl, he went back to the list of 5 names that Cheney, Gonzalez, and Card set up (that list included Alito, Roberts, Michael Luttig, Edith Clement, and Harvie Wilkinson).
The remaining 3 are dead nominees, though, so any lucky 3rd vacancy this summer will need something new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.