Of course, when Scalia helped Bush steal election 2000, this sort of outcome was exactly what he had in mind.

AP:

he Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

So, they're forcing me to accept their religion. Theocracy, here we come!

The Bush administration says taxpayers should not be allowed to challenge the government's conferences [to train Christianists in how to work the system to apply for grants] because Congress did not earmark funds for a specific program and no funds were distributed outside the government. The White House pulled money for the conferences out of general appropriations.

So, Hillary, what are your thoughts on this? Barack?

NOTE Of course, I'm sure none of this White House money would be used to affect election outcomes using megachurches in swing states. Because that would be wrong.

UPDATE I agree with Souter, dissenting:

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented.

``When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury,'' Souter wrote for the group.

Exactly. I don't want the Christianists spending my money to advance their religion. Let them spend their own money, of which they collect much.