june 25, 2007
Supreme Court Decisions Uphold Freedoms of Religion and Speech
"Today's Supreme Court decision marks a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."
President Bush issued this statement following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Bush's faith-based initiative, allowing religious organizations to receive federal funding to help in community building programs.
"The Faith-Based and Community Initiative can remain focused on strengthening America's armies of compassion and expanding their good works," the president's statement went on to say. "Similar efforts by governors and mayors in states and cities all across the country can also continue to advance."
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation case ruled against church-state separationists' federal lawsuit challenging the use of taxpayer dollars to fund these faith-based programs. The Court ruled that the separationists had no legal standing to bring the suit.
''This is a very significant victory that sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).' The ACLJ had filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the faith-based initiative legislation.
"The high wall of separation is a myth used by radical secularists to abridge freedom of speech and religion" said Rev. Paul Schenck, Executive Director of the National Pro-Life Action Center. "What the Court did today was to lower that wall - allowing Christians and other religious Americans to fully participate in efforts to improve our communities,"
President Bush called this ruling a win for the thousands of community and faith-based nonprofits all across the country that have partnered with government at all levels to serve their neighbors. "Most importantly," he said, "it is a win for the many whose lives have been lifted by the caring touch and compassionate hearts of these organizations."
Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech During Elections
In a second ruling regarding censorship in the weeks and months leading up to an election, the Court ruled on the side of free speech. In the consolidated cases, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supreme Court decision acknowledged that a pro-life group should have been permitted to air advertising in the final months leading up to a 2004 election.
Pointing out that free speech rights take precedence over government restrictions on political advertising, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision that could set the stage for further challenges to federal limitations on money in politics.
The court eased legal barriers aimed at corporate- and union-financed television ads, opening a door for interest groups to become an influential voice in the closing days of an election.
“This decision represents a severe blow to a campaign finance provision that amounts to nothing more than censorship,” said Jay Sekulow. “While the Supreme Court fell short of the votes necessary to overturn a disturbing provision in the McCain-Feingold law that puts limits on issue advertising in the weeks and months leading up to elections – the high court made an important acknowledgement – the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored. This decision opens the door to further challenges of these free speech restrictions and represents a First Amendment victory for those who want to express their views on issues that matter most prior to an election.”
Again, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief in this case urging the high court to remove the prohibition of grassroots lobbying organizations from taking part in issue-advertising 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
Three members of the majority, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would have gone further and overruled the issue-advertising section of the McCain-Feingold law. Instead, the court declared that the law was unconstitutional only as it had been applied to the Wisconsin group.
In a dissent, Justice David Souter said the decision "effectively and unjustifiably" overturns an earlier high court ruling upholding regulations of corporate and union issue ads.
The decision is a setback for Sen. John McCain, one of the co-sponsors of the law who is now running for president. McCain has come under criticism from conservatives for attempting to restrict political money and political advertising.
"Obviously, I regret that decision, but it was very narrow," McCain told reporters in Columbia, S.C.
Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney disagreed, praising the Supreme Court ruling. "It's the beginning of an opening, I believe, to remove McCain-Feingold and its provisions that affect free speech and hopefully its broader provisions."
More from the American Center for Law & Justice
More from the National Pro-Life Action Center
E-mail Craig with your comments on this Blog
ChurchWatch Front
Page
More from Craig
von Buseck on CBN.com
More from Spiritual Life