“The Sphinx,” because he sits there during the oral arguments and rarely says a word. His explanation is that “we’ve invited these lawyers here to tell us what they think, so we ought to listen to them and not do so much talking ourselves.”

I’ve heard – from people who’ve heard about and seen it first hand – that he is often literally asleep. I wonder if he has those comic book glasses with the eyes painted on.

So, the correct question to ask is “Who doesn’t have standing in any case like this?”

All U.S. citizens have a stake in this, therefore any and all U.S. citizens have standing.

I guess this is just emblematic of what’s happening over in Iraq. Under the Bush idea of religious domination…er, freedom, any Iraqi wanting a post-Saddam Hussein secular democracy didn’t have standing, while all the sharia-spouting, ultra-hardcore Islamicists who want a monolithic, monopolistic Islamic Republic in the new, liberated Iraq did have standing, at the torture-chamber Iraqi Interior Ministry, most of southern Iraq including Basra and of course, the al Qaeda who were let loose inside Iraq after Bush invaded and drove the more secular Sunni Baathists from power.

So, Bush and his hardcore, right-wing religious pals have their eyes and their shriveled hearts set on making America into an image of Iraq? Sectarian violence? Religious monopoly? Hell on earth?

If the Supreme Court justices don’t stop this blatant attempt to destroy the wall separating church and state, then they will be branded as traitors to one of the pillars of our free society.

Clarence “The Sphinx” Thomas? I don’t get it. Is the Sphinx a mythical creature with superhuman powers of sleeping?

“The Sphinx,” because he sits there during the oral arguments and rarely says a word. His explanation is that “we’ve invited these lawyers here to tell us what they think, so we ought to listen to them and not do so much talking ourselves.” I find that to be a bit of a cop-out, in that part of listening to the lawyers is probing their arguments, and sifting out the spin from the logic. That’s the one shot a justice has to speak directly with the two sides, the only chance to engage in a dialogue, and to fail to use that opportunity is not a plus in my book.

But hey, he’s on the court and I’m not, so he gets to do what he wants — and so do I.

This is an interesting case for certain. I’m not a lawyer, just someone who likes to argue. But I’d argue that a) Congress cannot make laws establishing religion; b) control of spending is a major – if not the major power held by Congress; c) there is no clause permitting Congress to cheat by authorizing spending while pretending not to know it’s for supporting religious organizations.

Were it so, Congress could merely cut deals with the Preznit authorizing, say, $5b for “Military Instruction in Ethical and Moral Conduct For Counter-Insurgency”. Which would sound like “how not to torture and solicit bribes from the local populace”. But which would be, known to all, intended for “killing them or converting them to Christianity”. In other words, Congress cannot authorize such violations of the first amendment through feigned ignorance any more than through explicit intent. Pretending to be a dumbass is not, as far as I am aware, a sanctioned method for circumventing the law in the last 1000 years of common law; forgive my lack of a handy Latin phrase.

I am actually for religious organizations receiving fund for non-profit, charity-driven purposes. But not if it’s tied to promoting particular religions or sectarian ends (except, of course, to the degree that your act of practicing a positive moral value casts a positive light on your religious beliefs – that would be kooky).

Check out this link about Sikh “free kitchens”. While they are not required to be vegetarians, they provide vegetarian food so that their charity may be received by all. They require no one to convert or profess anything to receive their charity.

There is a big difference between practicing religious values and promoting your sect. I disagree with those who would banish all religious reference from the public square; but I hold the difference betwen practicing or professing and promoting your particular religion or sect is the definitive litmus test for the establishment clause.

I woulda been a good laywer, I won’t kidja.

I am still amazed that religious voters never notice that Republicans like their votes, but have no intention of doing anything about their issues. Republicans just want to use those issues, election after election. It keeps working.

They think that when they die they’re going to go to heaven too

I guess that’s why I gave up on this crap in 1975 and didn’t re-engage until they lit this war up. A lot of us retreated to “working in the community” and blew off national politics.

Same thing I did in ‘94-’01. This is THE frustration for those of us activists who have bolder steps in mind for our representatives. These folks have elections to contend with, and a fickle public that doesnt think about politics until election time.

There is always an opponent ready to use their voting record against them, so politicians are always extra careful about how they support initiatives and policies while doing complex calculations of a possible mood of a possible electorate in the next election on their minds. Its a recipe for inaction and timid behavior people like you and I can’t stand.

It’s easy for us to see clearly what they should be doing, we’re activists and partisans on one side of an issue. The politicians are supposedly partisan but if you look at how things are done in DC, there is only one party in power – the Power Party. You and I are in the electorate that they fear because we are the only ones who can fire and hire them.

Its our job to agitate for or against things, its their job to decide which segment of the electorate will be most pissed off by whatever range of options they have to chose from. Its guaranteed to piss off principled folks like us no matter what they do, even when they eventually agree with us.

I guess that’s why I gave up on this crap in 1975 and didn’t re-engage until they lit this war up. A lot of us retreated to “working in the community” and blew off national politics.

I agree with you but I think this is a perfect example of the fact that all these people are much more interested in getting re-elected than they are in being responsive. Paralysis through analysis.

Of course, but this is never going to go away as long as we have a democracy. The next election is always the top priority of every elected official – its all about job security. I don’t think this issue will ever go away.

I may not always be crystal clear in how I word things, but you guys should know our interests are far more in alignment than they are different. I’m as upset about the fact that in two months we have had no action on Iraq from the do nothing Dems as you guys are.

In my blog posting today I pointed out that for the first time in a long time, the more radical elements of the party and the reasonable practical folks are in alignment in wondering what happened to the mandate given to the politicians back in November. You’d think they would understand clearly the people want out of Iraq and they have free reign to not do the timid thing they felt forced to do for 6 years.

I agree with you but I think this is a perfect example of the fact that all these people are much more interested in getting re-elected than they are in being responsive. Paralysis through analysis.