Tweet
You read that right, folks.
In a column, the executive director of the "Secular Coalition to Destroy America" whines about it:
It's about time Obama gave Christian Americans a little Hope and Change! 
Oh, you might wonder what the ruling was. Seems Sean Faircloth (a pseudonym if ever I heard one, his real name is probably Abdullah Mohammad Mujahad) forgot to mention it.
While this is all great news for Christians today -- I know I'm celebrating! -- I can't help but wonder what Obama is up to.
He has just succeeded in establishing that it is constitutional to distribute funds via tax credits, and nobody -- not one single solitary citizen -- has the legal standing to challenge it.
How will Obama use this legal precedent? After all, he worked hard to get it. He must want it for something bigger than finding a way for legislators to bypass the supposed Constitutional separation of church and state.
(Please note: The words "separation of church and state" are not found in the Constitution.)
In a column, the executive director of the "Secular Coalition to Destroy America" whines about it:
In a 5-4 decision, the court’s ruling in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn will keep alive an Arizona program that allows taxpayers to send money to private schools, mostly private religious schools, and then take a dollar-for-dollar tax credit. The decision blocks citizens from bringing suit by knocking aside a long-standing precedent that said citizens have standing in court to challenge laws if their tax money is used in a way that might violate church-state separation. The opinion, written by Justice Antony Kennedy, stated there was no discernable way to measure the effect of a tax credit on those bringing suit and therefore the harm they alleged was not actionable. This is one of the most theocratic decisions of the Roberts Court to date, and the activism displayed by Chief Justice John Roberts (remember “I’m just an umpire”?) and others in the majority opinion is stunning.
In Justice Elena Kagan’s first dissent, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, she correctly pointed out the court has directly faced the issue several times before and never even discussed the majority’s extreme idea that there is not even standing to address this clear violation of church–state separation. (In the 1968 ruling Flast v. Cohen, the Court declared that citizens had standing to sue the government specifically over violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.) Justice Kagan put it starkly and correctly: The Arizona ruling, she wrote, “threatens to eliminate all occasions for a taxpayer to contest the government’s monetary support of religion.” Read that sentence again to let its significance sink in.
[
]
The saddest note for me about the ruling is perhaps that the Obama administration stood with the majority. Justice Kagan, former Obama administration Solicitor General, thankfully did the right thing in her vigorous dissent. The Obama administration is the same administration that -- despite President Obama’s pledge of July 1, 2008 -- has failed to sign the Executive Order prohibiting proselytizing and discrimination in so-called faith-based initiatives. (The President does not need Congress to do the right thing here. All he needs is a pen.).
In Justice Elena Kagan’s first dissent, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, she correctly pointed out the court has directly faced the issue several times before and never even discussed the majority’s extreme idea that there is not even standing to address this clear violation of church–state separation. (In the 1968 ruling Flast v. Cohen, the Court declared that citizens had standing to sue the government specifically over violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.) Justice Kagan put it starkly and correctly: The Arizona ruling, she wrote, “threatens to eliminate all occasions for a taxpayer to contest the government’s monetary support of religion.” Read that sentence again to let its significance sink in.
[
]The saddest note for me about the ruling is perhaps that the Obama administration stood with the majority. Justice Kagan, former Obama administration Solicitor General, thankfully did the right thing in her vigorous dissent. The Obama administration is the same administration that -- despite President Obama’s pledge of July 1, 2008 -- has failed to sign the Executive Order prohibiting proselytizing and discrimination in so-called faith-based initiatives. (The President does not need Congress to do the right thing here. All he needs is a pen.).
Oh, you might wonder what the ruling was. Seems Sean Faircloth (a pseudonym if ever I heard one, his real name is probably Abdullah Mohammad Mujahad) forgot to mention it.
In a 5-4 decision today, the US Supreme Court effectively declared Arizona’s subsidy of religious schools via a tax credit constitutional — by dodging the question.
The Court, agreeing with the Obama Administration’s request, determined that US taxpayers do not have legal standing to sue over how their tax dollars are being spent.
The State of Arizona’s constitution bans direct state aid to religious schools. Vouchers are banned under this provision. To bypass this restriction, legislators created a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of $500 for individuals or $1,000 for couples for donations made to organizations which pay tuition for students attending private or parochial schools.
While the tax credit is not refundable — that is, if you don’t owe taxes, you don’t get a credit back — it may be deducted in full from taxes owed.
More than $50M per year has been directed through this roundabout route from collected state tax revenues to private schools — depending on the year, up to 92% of which have been religious.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared the law an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court did not weigh the merits of the complaint, but rather decided that taxpayers do not have standing to bring a lawsuit about how a tax credit is expended. While, he said, a tax credit “may have similar economic consequences”, the injury to the taxpayer is merely speculative because the private individual making the donation directs the funds, not the state.
The Court, agreeing with the Obama Administration’s request, determined that US taxpayers do not have legal standing to sue over how their tax dollars are being spent.
The State of Arizona’s constitution bans direct state aid to religious schools. Vouchers are banned under this provision. To bypass this restriction, legislators created a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of $500 for individuals or $1,000 for couples for donations made to organizations which pay tuition for students attending private or parochial schools.
While the tax credit is not refundable — that is, if you don’t owe taxes, you don’t get a credit back — it may be deducted in full from taxes owed.
More than $50M per year has been directed through this roundabout route from collected state tax revenues to private schools — depending on the year, up to 92% of which have been religious.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared the law an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court did not weigh the merits of the complaint, but rather decided that taxpayers do not have standing to bring a lawsuit about how a tax credit is expended. While, he said, a tax credit “may have similar economic consequences”, the injury to the taxpayer is merely speculative because the private individual making the donation directs the funds, not the state.
He has just succeeded in establishing that it is constitutional to distribute funds via tax credits, and nobody -- not one single solitary citizen -- has the legal standing to challenge it.
How will Obama use this legal precedent? After all, he worked hard to get it. He must want it for something bigger than finding a way for legislators to bypass the supposed Constitutional separation of church and state.
(Please note: The words "separation of church and state" are not found in the Constitution.)
Comment