Obama lawyers oppose suits enforcing separation of church and state

[Hannah Bell]

The Obama administration intervened in the United States Supreme Court earlier this month to oppose a taxpayers’ lawsuit seeking an injunction against an Arizona state scheme designed to funnel millions of tax dollars into religious education.

Of particular note was the thoroughly anti-democratic position taken during oral argument by Neal Katyal, Obama’s solicitor General―the political appointee responsible for presenting the president’s position to the Supreme Court.

Katyal told the nine members of the high court that taxpayers have no right to challenge unconstitutional governmental expenditures on religion when their own tax dollars cannot be traced to the spending. His remarks visibly astounded the more liberal justices, including Katyal’s former supervisor Elena Kagan, whom he replaced as solicitor general after Obama appointed Kagan to the Supreme Court last summer.

If a majority of the Supreme Court justices accepts the Obama administration’s position, which directly contradicts decades of precedent giving taxpayers the right to seek injunctions against unconstitutional religious expenditures, such violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause can no longer be challenged in court.

The Arizona law allows a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit―up to $500 per person and $1,000 per married couple―for payments directly to “school tuition organizations” (STOs), private, nonprofit corporations which in turn allocate the funds to scholarships for “nongovernmental primary or secondary schools.” Over 85 percent of the tax dollars passing through Arizona STOs are used to pay tuition for students attending religious schools, primarily those administered by the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians.

As pointed out by Paul Bender, the Arizona State University law professor who argued on behalf of the taxpayers, the scheme diverts tax dollars directly to private organizations, which then can allocate them to parents on condition that they send their children to religious schools, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Obama administration intervened in the case specifically to argue that the taxpayers lacked “standing” because the precise dollars the taxpayers paid in taxes did not go to the religious schools, rather money the state would have received from other taxpayers was used to fund the religious training...

Obama once taught constitutional law and understands the implications of the position being taken by his solicitor general. Depriving taxpayers of standing to sue governments for funding religious institutions and activities facilitates the right-wing’s ongoing efforts to dismantle “the wall of separation between church and state”―to use Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1802 description of the purpose behind the First Amendment’s religion clauses.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/supr-n19.shtml

[atreides1]

1. Maybe he should just wear that pink tutu

First he wants to continue to suck up to the Republicans, and now he wants to kiss the asses of the religious right.

Hope and change huh?

[Hannah Bell]

2. like a bad dream.

[DaveinJapan]

3. "visibly astounded"? Somehow I doubt it.

"His remarks visibly astounded the more liberal justices, including Katyal’s former supervisor Elena Kagan"

Well, since cameras aren't allowed in the courtroom I guess we'll have to take this persons' word for it, but it sounds like hyperbole to me and I'm unlikely to buy most of the rest of these arguments based on that hyperbole.

A rare Unrec from me, but maybe if they write their articles better in future (sans the bullshit)...

[DirkGently]

6. The author backs up the "bullshit" pretty well.

Breyer, obviously agitated, clearly saw the implications of Kaytal’s double talk. “Flast is gone; is that right? Flast is gone,” he said. “There is no more―there is nothing more to Flast, because it just happened that nobody had thought of this system at the time of Flast.”

This and other quotes in the article amply demonstrate that several justices were in deed "agitated" based on the justices' words alone. If you want to call "bullshit," you'll need to also assume the author made up the quotes.

[leftstreet]

8. No kidding. Sounds like they were all posting 'facepalm' smilies

In fact it sounds like some of them were practically embarrassed

[Starry Messenger]

4. recommend.

[ananda]

5. And this makes Obama different from Bush how?

nt

[roguevalley]

9. he's bush's less idiotic twin.

[leftstreet]

7. We need a War On Taxpayers czar

What a bullshit position:

"taxpayers lacked “standing” because the precise dollars the taxpayers paid in taxes did not go to the religious schools, rather money the state would have received from other taxpayers was used to fund the religious training..."

:crazy:

K&R