Supreme Court upholds tax credits for religious schools

This is extremely annoying. In essence, the Supreme Court has claimed that taxing the adherents of some religions at a lower rate is constitutional. Now the only way to deal with this is to try desperately to get laws or amendments that make this practice illegal passed. Another way to deal with it is to make sure that minority religious groups and non-religious groups take as full advantage of the AZ tax credit law as possible.

"To put it as briefly as possible, the Court seems to think that a tax expenditure is not an expenditure."

Kasper said:

"To put it as briefly as possible, the Court seems to think that a tax expenditure is not an expenditure."

So by your definition if we cut taxes on anything this is the same thing definition-wise as actually spending money on it? If it's personal income, then I don't see an issue. This would mean less parents bitching about a public school curriculum they don't agree with and attempting to force it on the rest of us.

The next generation, if they have schools at all and are not avoiding being cannibalized in an America like "The Road," will shake they heads in disgusted wonder at this Supreme Court's work. Scalia and Thomas are two of the worst people and judges ever to be foisted upon a democratic nation.

Would that hell existed.

I suppose in 2012 the Republicans could run on a ticket of, 'constitution? We don't need no filthy constitution!' It's not my country but a Republican ticket of Sarah Palin, and Ann Coulter for Vice, with Michelle Malkin Secretary of State, and Phyllis Schlafly in charge of schools would be interesting?

It was pointed out that if someone gets $500 though a tax credit, or a subsidy, or a direct payment, the effect is the same. The individual is getting $500 from the government in support of exclusive religious programs, regardless of how the money is paid. This is NOT a tax cut. It is a 1:1 payment from state taxes.

Since most of the Right considers Atheism to be a religion, I wonder if atheists should start exploiting these pro-religion laws that the GOP and the right wing activists on the SCOTUS hold so dearly...

So by your definition if we cut taxes on anything this is the same thing definition-wise as actually spending money on it?

If it’s personal income, then I don’t see an issue.

This would mean less parents bitching about a public school curriculum they don’t agree with and attempting to force it on the rest of us

I have been paying taxes for over forty years that has been used to fund public school cirriculum full of evolution material which is nothing but a big lie. Its about time we got a break on something from the corrupt big brother that is abusing their God ordained position. There is a Hell and Judgment is on its way.

john said: I have been paying taxes for over forty years that has been used to fund public school cirriculum full of evolution material which is nothing but a big lie. Its about time we got a break on something from the corrupt big brother that is abusing their God ordained position. There is a Hell and Judgment is on its way.

You want to call names. Try this one on for size. Psalm 41:1 You call it April Fool. We call it National Atheist Day.

I have been paying taxes for over forty years that has been used to fund public school cirriculum full of evolution material which is nothing but a big lie.

Its about time we got a break on something from the corrupt big brother that is abusing their God ordained position. There is a Hell and Judgment is on its way.

Try this one on for size. Psalm 41:1

Michael P said:

It was pointed out that if someone gets $500 though a tax credit, or a subsidy, or a direct payment, the effect is the same. The individual is getting $500 from the government in support of exclusive religious programs, regardless of how the money is paid. This is NOT a tax cut. It is a 1:1 payment from state taxes.

They all have the same budgetary effect, but in the case of a tax credit, the government declines to collect the money in the first place; this has a slightly different moral flavor. Regardless, the budgetary effect is the reason taxpayers should have standing to challenge this kind of thing. Based on the NYT's description of the law, I think the law itself would be defensible, but the citizens of the state should have standing to challenge it in court.

john said: You want to call names. Try this one on for size. Psalm 41:1 You call it April Fool. We call it National Atheist Day.

My, my, my. I think I hit a nerve. Sorry friend. If you can't catch, you shouldn't throw.

john said: I have been paying taxes for over forty years that has been used to fund public school cirriculum full of evolution material which is nothing but a big lie. Its about time we got a break on something from the corrupt big brother that is abusing their God ordained position. There is a Hell and Judgment is on its way.

robert van bakel said: I suppose in 2012 the Republicans could run on a ticket of, 'constitution? We don't need no filthy constitution!' It's not my country but a Republican ticket of Sarah Palin, and Ann Coulter for Vice, with Michelle Malkin Secretary of State, and Phyllis Schlafly in charge of schools would be interesting?

Nah, mrg, your first estimate is on the money. Loki troll. That last one is absolutely classic.

I find it difficult to get overly upset about this. Yeah, there's a principle involved, but at heart the US tax code is an ugly and clumsy hodgepodge, and picking at any one element of it seems an exercise in futility.

There's something to be said for a "flat tax" and no exemptions, but alas once it gets to the consideration of practicalities, few remain enthusiastic about the idea.

"For every problem, there is a simple, straightforward, all-inclusive solution, which is invariably wrong."

You're in Oz, right? Is the tax code a mess down there as well? It seems politicians can never resist tinkering with it.

How in the world did we go from tax credits to flu shots? Have a nice day ya'll, I'm outa here.

That's all it takes to get rid of these yahoos? If only we had known.

john said: How in the world did we go from tax credits to flu shots? Have a nice day ya'll, I'm outa here.

All tax systems are always in a mess. I believe the current Australian Tax Regulations amount to 16 000 pages of print. This new Carbon Emissions Tax, or whatever they're going to call it, is going to be a cast-iron bitch to administer.

Dave Luckett said: This new Carbon Emissions Tax, or whatever they're going to call it, is going to be a cast-iron bitch to administer.

The stupid,uninnoculated,yahoo,know nothing troll is back. This is too much fun. You have finally convinced me. Evolution IS true! We have found the missing links, and they are YOU.

I think it is time to stop feeding the john troll -- I will send further comments to the bathroom wall.

derwood said: Since most of the Right considers Atheism to be a religion, I wonder if atheists should start exploiting these pro-religion laws that the GOP and the right wing activists on the SCOTUS hold so dearly...

Ah, but keep in mind, atheism is non-prophet.

Dave Luckett said:This new Carbon Emissions Tax, or whatever they're going to call it, is going to be a cast-iron bitch to administer.

The moral bankruptcy of the majority of the Supreme Court is rater easily demonstrated. Instead of (predominantly) religious schools, let's just imagine that the middlemen were collecting scholarship money for the type of "whites only" academies hat were common in the South in the 60's right after court-ordered desegregation. Based on past Supreme Court decisions, it would be illegal for the state to set up such schools, or to pay for a segregated system, but now it's perfectly all right to create a tax credit to support such a school?

The majority on the Supreme Court needs to be impeached for terminal cynicism.

Henry J said: Ah, but keep in mind, atheism is non-prophet.

I see the case exactly as eric and Mike Clinch do. There is not one iota of difference between the far right of today and the segregationists of the 60's, except that segregation is now being pursued along economic lines rather than explicitly racial lines. As ever, religion is used as an excuse to further a political agenda.

Maybe I should have said a device to further a political agenda. Or both.

john said: My, my, my. I think I hit a nerve. Sorry friend. If you can't catch, you shouldn't throw.

John Kwok said:

Henry J said: Ah, but keep in mind, atheism is non-prophet.

So are Deism and Agnosticism!

Matt Young said: I see the case exactly as eric and Mike Clinch do. There is not one iota of difference between the far right of today and the segregationists of the 60's, except that segregation is now being pursued along economic lines rather than explicitly racial lines. As ever, religion is used as an excuse to further a political agenda.

I think the real alarming thing about this story is the fact that there no longer appears to be a swing vote in SCOTUS. It's like they are sending smoke signals to neocons telling them its time to pass un-Constitutional laws and file frivolous lawsuits so the all new loaded SCOTUS can overturn the decisions of their predecesors and undo all that, "legislating from the bench".

It means more personal income for those who choose to send children to certain select private religious schools, versus those who don’t, via the government.

Although this is true, it also means that you are paying for their private schools with your tax dollars.

DJ said:

It means more personal income for those who choose to send children to certain select private religious schools, versus those who don’t, via the government.

Fortunately those who rely on the public school system don't have to foot the bill for anything, so what's so unfair about it?

Although this is true, it also means that you are paying for their private schools with your tax dollars.

It's their money, how can this be the case?

I disagree, however, with Mike’s observation that the Supreme Court needs to be impeached, even if I have some reservations about this ruling of theirs.

It means more personal income for those who choose to send children to certain select private religious schools, versus those who don’t, via the government.

Fortunately those who rely on the public school system don’t have to foot the bill for anything, so what’s so unfair about it?

Although this is true, it also means that you are paying for their private schools with your tax dollars.

It’s their money, how can this be the case?

Laurance (and Jephthah) said: great site, love it!

John Kwok said:

robert van bakel said: ...and Phyllis Schlafly in charge of schools would be interesting?

I think Schlafly is dead

Isn't Conservapeadia a Poe, set up by liberals to make conservatives look like idiots? As for the tax credit, just see how much support the idea gets when you substitute (your favorite religion) for Christianity. And if these schools teach creationism, then THAT is being subsidized by the government.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said:

robert van bakel said: ...and Phyllis Schlafly in charge of schools would be interesting?

I think Schlafly is dead

Phyllis, born in 1924, is still alive - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly. Her son Andy runs the odious anti-encyclopedia website Conservapedia - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Matt G said: Isn't Conservapeadia a Poe, set up by liberals to make conservatives look like idiots?

DJ said: Fortunately those who rely on the public school system don't have to foot the bill for anything, so what's so unfair about it?

Dale Husband said:

Matt G said: Isn't Conservapeadia a Poe, set up by liberals to make conservatives look like idiots?

No, it's a perfect example of how screwed up things can get when run through the lens of an extremist ideology.

IANAL and not a tax exp[ert, not particularly politically savvy and it seems to me outrageous that this got upheld.
what is going on w/ the SCOTUS - the more conservative members claim to be strict constuctionists but the opinions read like they haven't even read the constitution/ prescendents.

corporations are not people - if they are I want to be taxed only on my profits not my income and when a corporation is found guilty of crime EVERY stockholder serves time -

the stste should not financially support religions, religious schools etc.

pretty basic stuff

Matt G said: Isn't Conservapeadia a Poe, set up by liberals to make conservatives look like idiots?

DJ: It’s their money...

I looked over the conservapedia article on relativity -- it's schizophrenic, obviously pieced together by multiple individuals with diverse agendas and varying levels of sanity. It makes claims such claims that "there's a lot of doubt in the scientific community about relativity" and that "unlike most physics, relativity uses complicated math and multiple assumptions."

Oddly, the quantum mechanics article is generally on the level, even though I would think most physicists agree that QM is dodgier -- they just haven't been able to figure out anything better.

Is that special relativity or general?

Both. My first thought was to suggest that you look at the article, my second EMPHATIC thought was that I shouldn't.

I won't give a link, if folks want to inflict that on themselves I can deny responsibility in good conscience.

According to the Times writeup, Scalia said that he would have gone further and overturned the existing precedent. And this is instructive. Think about what that writeup said.

It has long been US legal policy, and IMO entirely correctly, that taxpayers do not ordinarily have standing to protest the multifarious ways their money is spent. This makes sense, because there is probably no way for any government to spend a penny that SOMEBODY won't object to, for one reason or another. The redress for poor spending decisions has always and explicitly been political (vote the bums out), not legal.

So what's different about this case? Well, back in 1968 the Court decided to make an exception to this general policy, namely that if the government was spending tax money explicitly to promote some religious faith, THEN taxpayers would have standing. Otherwise, they don't. In other words, religious injury is justiciable, whereas other sorts of injury due to government spending policies are not.

And as I read it, what Scalia was saying is, this exception is inelegant and unnecessary. It should not be an exception, and if some government decides to use tax policy to subsidize a specific religious faith, voting the bums out remains the appropriate redress just as it is for spending on useless wars, NPR, or subsidizing the elderly.

Scalia is at least consistent and coherent. Determining whether some government spending program has sufficient religious bias to confer standing on unhappy taxpayers is a task Solomon would probably fumble. But I agree with most people here that taking money from public coffers and handing it to members of a specific religious sect is exactly what the 1968 decision prohibited, regardless of what accounting methods are deployed to do the transfer.

I suppose, if Kagan is correct, this decision in fact DOES overturn the 1968 Flast decision, since it provides a simple, foolproof method of circumventing the intent of that decision. And maybe harold is right also, that a sudden rash of blatant cash credits to religious-oriented right-wing Republican voting blocs will lead to a shift in legal misinterpretations, toward something more subtle.

(And off the subject, I can no longer see Panda's Thumb with Internet Explorer. I have to use Google Chrome now.)

I can no longer see Panda’s Thumb with Internet Explorer. I have to use Google Chrome

ben said:

Flint said: "... I can no longer see Panda’s Thumb with Internet Explorer. I have to use Google Chrome now."

That's a feature, not a bug.

Why is it that ONLY the main screen of Panda's Thumb has vanished? I can see the archives, the forum, the wall, the links, etc.

Flint said: Why is it that ONLY the main screen of Panda's Thumb has vanished? I can see the archives, the forum, the wall, the links, etc.

I'm using version 9. When I get around to it, I'll flush my cache.

Flint said: And as I read it, what Scalia was saying is, this exception is inelegant and unnecessary. It should not be an exception, and if some government decides to use tax policy to subsidize a specific religious faith, voting the bums out remains the appropriate redress just as it is for spending on useless wars, NPR, or subsidizing the elderly. Scalia is at least consistent and coherent.

If he’s consistent, its because he’s consistently pro-christian exceptionalism or pro-majoritarian rule.

Typo - I meant to say "alter prior constitutional interpretations".

My comment is a bit strong, but it is frustrating when expected legal outcomes become so predictable to a non-lawyer like me.

It should not be the case that a cynic should always be able to predict SCOTUS justice's decisions based on nothing but an understanding of their partisan ideology.

I would like to add one final thing. There are plenty of examples of justices and judges deciding in ways that did not "pay off" those who appointed them. Many of these came from Republican judges. Earl Warren is a famous example. Another good example is Judge Jones. We all recall the crowing, before the Dover decision, by ID/creationists who predicted victory, simply because Jones was a Bush-appointed Republican.

Scalia has a long history of giving legislators extremely broad backing on promoting religion, dating at least back to the 1980s when he dissented to Edwards Vs. Aguillard and stated he thought it was perfectly fine to teach biblical creationism. If he’s consistent, its because he’s consistently pro-christian exceptionalism or pro-majoritarian rule.

Now, if I were a Justice, I'd find the tax breaks granted to churches to be equally unconstitutional.

tomh said: It will all come down to Kennedy and there's a good chance he'll side with the Scalia wing - if they can fund religious schools with public money, teaching creationism in public school can't be far behind.

With respect to public acknowledgment of reli¬gious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

tomh said: As for the current Supreme Court, just wait until an evolution case comes up before them. It will all come down to Kennedy and there's a good chance he'll side with the Scalia wing - if they can fund religious schools with public money, teaching creationism in public school can't be far behind.

eric said:

tomh said: It will all come down to Kennedy and there's a good chance he'll side with the Scalia wing - if they can fund religious schools with public money, teaching creationism in public school can't be far behind.

I think you are probably right. Kennedy sided with Scalia in part in the 2005 McCreary vs ACLU ten commandments case. Basically, he said the majority was right in ruling that courts could look at historical use and were not limited only to what legislators said, but that otherwise they got it wrong in ruling a ten commandments display unconstitutional. Scalia's dissent in that case is a horror. If you really want to see what sort of justice he'd prefer, read it. Here's a taste:

With respect to public acknowledgment of reli¬gious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

I realize this comment is a little tangential, but you all remember David Barton the "historian" who was instrumental at rewriting the history standards fiasco in Texas. He's still on his campaign tirade and recently Mike Huckabee spoke at a fundy christian meeting with him. What Huckabee says is rather astounding regarding Americans and how we should pay attention to the message they're sending:

http://blog.au.org/2011/04/08/correcting-the-historical-record-jon-stewart-debunks-huckabeebarton-%e2%80%98christian-nation%e2%80%99-mythology-2/?utm_source=au-homepage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage

tomh said: Scalia doesn't care what he says, and he definitely enjoys the shock value of some of his statements. Michael Newdow wrote a great dissection of this particular dissent, Question to Justice Scalia: Does the Establishment Clause Permit the Disregard of Devout Catholics? And for anybody, (Kwok, for instance) who thinks that a District Court ruling in Pennsylvania, (Dover), will have any impact on a Supreme Court decision, well, they simply have no clue. There are four justices who would be happy to take up the issue right now, which would bring it all down to Kennedy. Kennedy, who thinks the Ten Commandments are fine to display, and the National Day of Prayer is perfectly legitimate, has become more and more illiberal when it comes to mixing religion and government.

eric said:

tomh said: It will all come down to Kennedy and there's a good chance he'll side with the Scalia wing - if they can fund religious schools with public money, teaching creationism in public school can't be far behind.

I think you are probably right. Kennedy sided with Scalia in part in the 2005 McCreary vs ACLU ten commandments case. Basically, he said the majority was right in ruling that courts could look at historical use and were not limited only to what legislators said, but that otherwise they got it wrong in ruling a ten commandments display unconstitutional. Scalia's dissent in that case is a horror. If you really want to see what sort of justice he'd prefer, read it. Here's a taste:

With respect to public acknowledgment of reli¬gious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.