




















Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan2. Comment #51857 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm
The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."
3. Comment #51859 by crazy4blues on June 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm
4. Comment #51861 by jonahemery on June 25, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I don't understand why general American's don't view something like this with outrage. America was founded as a great lighthouse of hope upon the fact religious authority and dogma was finally divorced from political power. Look at all the liberty, social progress, and happiness that has resulted.5. Comment #51863 by heafnerj on June 25, 2007 at 12:14 pm
6. Comment #51865 by Angieruns on June 25, 2007 at 12:27 pm
We are headed down the road of the Taliban....can you spell T H E O C R A C Y ?7. Comment #51866 by Steven Mading on June 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
One scary thing about this ruling is that to avoid having to address the actual issue they ruled that no citizen has standing to even try to sue the government over constitutional issues just for the sake of the constitutional issue itself, It must be attached to some other incident in which the citizen was wronged. So in other words, to avoid having to even hear the case about the office of faith-based initiatives, they destroyed a key means of enforcing the constitution in general, for ANY constitutional issue.8. Comment #51880 by CruciFiction on June 25, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The FFRF news release today.9. Comment #51888 by jonecc on June 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ironic that their acronym is SCOTUS. Duns Scotus was a medieval theologian.10. Comment #51891 by bruce on June 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.11. Comment #51892 by madpatriot on June 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Waitaminute....12. Comment #51934 by The Schuermannator on June 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm
13. Comment #51943 by liberalartist on June 25, 2007 at 3:37 pm
14. Comment #51953 by cp21yos on June 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm
15. Comment #51978 by Zaphod on June 25, 2007 at 7:08 pm
16. Comment #51980 by Crazymalc on June 25, 2007 at 7:20 pm
17. Comment #51983 by dlitt on June 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.
18. Comment #51988 by troyreynolds86 on June 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm
And so the end begins. Up until now we have only feared a theocracy. Today we stare into its glaring eyes, and shocked by its toothy grin. We American atheists have had our only recourse for protection now cut from under us. Our country, at the very core of her ideals, provided the right to challege the authority of the government, as our founders challenged the authority of the king, so that our government could never become the tyranny that our colonies had known. A tyranny is born when voices are silenced, and today we are ordered silent, not by the rifles of a militia but by the banging of a gavel. Protests within the public square can still live on, but those pleas will now be silenced by the stone walls of our hallowed halls of justice.19. Comment #51992 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm
avatar"Some"? Half! Didn't they just say "equal footing"?With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.
I guess the Freedom From Religion Foundation should apply for some of that federal pie.
20. Comment #51998 by Happy Hominid on June 25, 2007 at 9:22 pm
21. Comment #52018 by macronencer on June 26, 2007 at 12:36 am
22. Comment #52201 by Happy Hominid on June 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm
23. Comment #52496 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 6:19 am
If this case is or was in fact as simple as laid out in this article, then Justice Souter seems to have no case whatsoever. And any reader who is concerned with fidelity to written law should feel absolutely detested by his remark:
1. Comment #51856 by montiff on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 am
Other Comments by montiff