The Supremes get funny

Following a post on a recent Supreme Court ruling. First, from the poster, Robert Williams, at TaxVox:

In 1968, the Court ruled that citizens may sue to stop the government from spending that violates the Constitution

OK, progress, we have a Constitution and in 1968 the courts figured that out, (we are dealing with slow learners).  It seems to me that citizens can sue when government violates the constitution by any method, spending, shooting, spitting or defecating.  It is the Constitution, after all.

Our new Supreme Kagan figured that much out:

 “Cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective—to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” 

OK, we are making progress, though Kagan left out spitting and defecating.

It does not matter how government violates our rights.  The issue in this case  was indirect financial support for education done at religious schools.  The statute gave a tax break for tuition donations.  But the particular right at issue makes no difference, if it is violated it is unconstitutional.

Roberts and his word twisting game must have been involved in this ruling, the man is senile.

Anyway, four stars to Kagan for figuring out that we have a Constitution. 

What did Thomas and Scalia say?

In a concurring opinion, Justices Scalia and Thomas argued that the Court should reverse Flast and deny standing to anyone objecting to either federal spending or tax expenditures.

Flast was the ruling in which the court discovered the Constitution above. What do they mean? (I am not reading the opinion) They are implying that a citizen can only sue from direct actions, either the wording of the law or the actions of government agents. I can see their point of view, they want to see direct intent for a violation to occur. But it is a difference without meaning.  The plaintiffs could have sued the particular tax agent for granting tax breaks to religious fanatics.

The plaintiffs could have won the case if they had determined the tax agent directly gave goodies to the religious part of education. Look at the religious school, did they separate out the tuition used for religious education? Did the tax agent explain that the tax break was only for non-religious training? Were the schools required to separate the religious costs from the standard education costs?