The wall separating religion and gov just lost a brick today

[usregimechange]

HEIN v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. (No. 06-157) 433 F. 3d 989, reversed.

5-4 (Majority: Scalia, Scalito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy)

"Ruled that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_in_brief_1



"The plurality points to the separation of powers to explain its distinction between legislative and executive spending decisions, see ante, at 20–21, but there is no difference on that point of view between a Judicial Branch review of an executive decision and a judicial evaluation of a congressional one. We owe respect to each of the other branches, no more to the former than to the latter, and no one has suggested that the Establishment Clause lacks applicability to executive uses of money. It would surely violate the Establishment Clause for the Department of Health and Human Services to draw on a general appropriation to build a chapel for weekly church services (no less than if a statute required it), and for good reason: if the Executive could accomplish through the exercise of discretion exactly what Congress cannot do through legislation, Establishment Clause protection would melt away." ~Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-157.ZD.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Yes this is upsetting indeed

All the more reason we need a Dem prez in 2008. And I pray for the good health of all the current SC justices.

[usregimechange]

2. Amen

[karlrschneider]

4. Well, 4 of them anyway...

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

3. When will we hear an apology from the Naderites for the big green lie?

The one that stated, in part, that even Supreme Court justices weren't an important enough issue to justify voting for Gore?

[magellan]

5. Oh for crap's sake

:nopity:

[LoZoccolo]

7. As I posted a few days ago, I am dedicated to being against Nader until the 2008 election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3331917

[magellan]

9. Head-in-the-sand isn't a winning strategy

Even if Nader hadn't run in 2000, the Repugs would've taken it to the SCOTUS and won. The PBC overvotes ensured that. So did other FL discrepancies and RW tactics that have yet to be addressed by the Democratic Party.

edit: until today - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1182478

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Amen!!

We need to keep pounding this point home. A vote for Gore instead of Nader means we probably wouldn't be at war in Iraq and we wouldn't be so worried about our SC right now.

[usregimechange]

8. Thw world would be a much different place

[Gabi Hayes]

10. let's all remember that the Florida Legislature voted NOT to send

the voted-for electors to the electoral college, even had Gore won the popular vote in Florida, so Bush still would have won

correct me if I'm wrong

[Trillo]

11. It may be an unpopular opinion,

i.e., to formally admit that we are now living in a theocracy, where certain religions can be favored over others, but hasn't it really been this way for a long, long time?

Perhaps it is better that the rulers finally admit that the Constitution was just a sham for the naive to believe in with hope, a red herring designed to distract and fool, while the predators picked, and continue picking, their bones.

[usregimechange]

12. That was a tad negative. imo