Supremes to Take on "Tithe or do Time" Initiative

The Supreme Court will look at the legality of Faith Based Initiatives and in doing so will also rule on the ability of taxpayers to sue to stop perceived violations of the "Establishment Clause," AKA the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), especially those initiated by the Executive branch. Quick synopsis

Generally, taxpayers do not have the right to sue the federal government over its expenditures. The Supreme Court has made an exception with respect to suits alleging that the federal government has spent money in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

But even in Establishment Clause cases, the courts have upheld taxpayer standing only in lawsuits that involve specific congressional approval to spend money that directly benefits religious groups. This case is different because it involves presidential action, rather than funding authorized by Congress.

Since I'm on a bit of a kick predicting outcomes, I'm calling this one 5-4 against the White House, with Kennedy going against Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

The way I see it the plan is skirts the edges, it doesn't establish any religion, or prohibit one either. So on that, it will be close. But it does penetrate the "wall" between the two, and that's been the tradition since day one. I think you'll get the four who favor religion and they'll take a "strict constructionist" view and vote for the White House. Combine that with the fact that they are also big fans of a strong executive branch, and this ruling directly effects it - and the Scalia gang are solidly in the White House's corner. The other four, or "skinny gang," generally adhere to the tradition of the Establishment Clause, and prefer a more pluralistic nation, so they'll vote against the White House. So that leaves Kennedy, and I'm going on gut. I could be wrong on him, but you're not going to see more that 5 votes in either direction.

Personally, philosophically, I'm against the Faith Based Initiative...initiative. Charity at gun-point ain't my idea of charity. I don't understand the idea, nor the initiator. First the idea. "Give money to this charity or go to jail." Awesome. Next the initiator. A GOP President should understand that his role is to give me back more of my money, and then let me decide how I want to distribute it. Smaller government, more individual responsibility and all that jazz. Plus, at $2.15 billion in federal contributions to these charities in 2005, I figure I should be able to deduct at least $7 from my next tax bill. And yes, I know I'm carping on religious charities here, but they're making the headline with the Supremes. Be warned however, that before you go all "AH-HA" on me I feel this way about all state "donations" to charities. Give me the money, let me decide, let me have the write-off. Don't take my money, give to who you like, and further penalize me by taking my write-off.

Legally? I don't know. The government can't have 300 million taxpayers all suing over what they think is a legal use of money. On the other hand, since the Feds can't stop spending, we as the "boss" in the relationship need some sort of recourse. Normally, I'd go with, "vote them out that do wrong," but as adults we all know that spending plans never die in Washington. Even if Hillary were to win the gig in 2008, I have a hard time thinking I'll read a headline that says, "Hillary Scraps Faith Based Initiative!" So if certain exceptions exist to sue to stop spending and shrink the size of government, I say, "let is stand." Maybe we can point to that as precedent, and find more ways to act.