Supreme Court Kicks Open Door to Tax Payer Funding of Religious Schools While Closing Door to Tax Payers for Relief

In a 5-4 decision, the five Roman Catholic* justices affirmed the ability of the Arizona legislature to divert tax payer monies to parochial schools through the use of tax credits while denying the right of tax payers to challenge such diversions.  By denying standing to the plaintiffs in the 14 year old case, the Supreme Court basically closed the door to all tax payers to challenge laws that funnel monies to parochial schools and institutions in breach of the separation of church and state.

A little history, as I understand it.  In Arizona, a person may "donate" monies to a "scholarship" fund that supports students of private and parochial schools.  Those "donated" monies then are reimbursed dollar for dollar up to $1000 in the form of tax credits.  Not tax deductions but tax credits.  The state claims that since they are giving a credit only for the "donation" it is not funding private or parochial schools.

The Supreme Court today, for all intents and purposes, agreed with the state.  But they did so in the insidious manner of denying "standing" to the plaintiffs.  In other words, the 5 conservative justices said "fuck you" to tax payers who feel that the state is willfully breaking through the wall that separates church and state.  The conservatives on the Roberts Court enjoy denying standing when they cannot twist the Constitution enough to support their agenda.  In this particular case, they basically shut the court house door to any tax payer who has a gripe about how tax payer monies are spent.

So, even though my tax payer monies are being spent to support parochial schools, the Supreme Court has ruled that I have no standing to challenge such support.

I guess only the rich, powerful and corporations will now have access to the Roberts Court.

*I use the term "Roman Catholic" to denote that the 5 justices (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito) are all of the conservative strain of Catholicism.  I am also of the opinion that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and possibly even Thomas are of the Opus Dei strain of Roman Catholics, thus making them ultra-conservative Catholics.  This is not to demean Catholics, but merely to point out that the decisions by the 5 conservative justices often adhere to the orthodoxy of the very conservative strain of Catholicism.

Arizona Clean Elections is Doomed: McComish v. Bennett Oral Arguments

I think this question by Justice Kennedy shows us how the Supreme Court will rule on McComish vs. Bennett:

Do you think it would be a fair characterization of this law to say that its purpose and its effect are to produce less speech in political campaigns?

As I mentioned in my post last night, Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy will most likely strike down the Arizona Clean Elections law.  This will expand their tainted concept that money equals speech and that the more money someone has the more speech they get.

I truly wonder how they sleep at night, twisting the very ideal of free speech in such a convoluted manner in regards to elections.  They won't allow a student not on school property to hold up a sign promoting the use of marijuana but they will allow the free and unadulterated flow of money into political campaigns.

Today's oral argument was a sad day for the United States and the ideals it was built upon.  When the decision is handed down, unless by some miracle, it will be an even sadder day.

*UPDATE* Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate has a nice summary of today's oral arguments.

There are probably only about 10 guys in America who are cheerfully unconcerned about the influence of multimillionaires on elections. One of them is Charles Koch. David Koch is another, as is Karl Rove. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and the guy with the top hat on the board of the Monopoly game are two more. Luckily for them, the other five guys currently sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. And judging from this morning's argument in McComish v. Bennett, there is no principle those five justices will fight harder to preserve than the right of the impossibly wealthy to purchase as much speech as they want and need to win a political campaign.

*UPDATE 2* Here is a link to the transcript of today's oral arguments.

Going to the Wall for the Westboro Inbreds

I was first introduced to the hate spewed by the inbreds of the Westboro Baptist Church and their patriarch Fred Phelps while living in Kansas City.  They had decided to hold a good old fashion book burning of Heather Has Two Mommies on the Plaza in Kansas City.  Up until then, I thought that book burnings were just the work of fascist regimes, were part our darkest past or a scene in the movie Footloose.  I was stunned.  I just couldn't think of why any person would want to burn a book, no matter how much you hated the message.

Over the years I have followed the WBC in the news as they perform their despicable acts of protesting funerals of murdered gays and fallen soldiers.  I have seen and read their hate.  I have wondered how anyone could have that much hate in their hearts.  I have tried to figure out how their vision of God could be so different from mine.  The one thing I have ever thought was that the government should silence them.

"But PJ," you are thinking, "How can you defend them?"  I don't defend them.  I defend their right to spew their hate and their non-sense that America is in distress because we gays are not sent to concentration camps or executed on sight.  Its not an enlightened position by any means.  I hate the WBC and everything they stand for.  I think they are the lowest form of life.  They prey on the deepest, darkest emotions in the hopes that others will openly hold their views.  And let's be honest, they are not the only organization that thinks that God hates gays.

My position is pragmatic.  If I don't stand at the wall with the WBC to defend their rights to free speech, unencumbered by the tyranny of the majority, then who will stand at the wall with me when the majority comes after me for what I say and write?  I know what Justice Samuel Alito won't:

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

We all know that the Brent Bozells of the world will stop at nothing to stifle speech that doesn't meet their standards.  Will you help defend free speech from the tyranny of the majority?  Will you stand at the wall with me?