After all these years of watching the U.S. Supreme Court perfect its foul-ball stroke, what a pleasure it was to see it finally, really connect. The court hit three rulings out of the park on Monday. How ‘bout them Black Frox?

The liberal scribes and the lefty interest groups who have long had their way with one Supreme Court lineup after another are all in a dither. But people who respect law, logic and common sense – and have longed for a high court that does the same – are encouraged.

Here’s why there’s joy in Mudville:

“Keep the faith, baby

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group, sued the Bush administration over its various faith-based initiatives, calling them government sponsorship of religion.

On this one, the court took an easy, but logically defensible way out: The majority ruled that merely being a taxpayer does not give a person the right to sue the government over policies the taxpayer finds offensive.

“If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the outcome “tied our hands.” But not very tightly, apparently, since in the next breath she talked about her hopes for a better outcome in the group’s taxpayer suit to protect patients at Veterans Affairs hospitals from chaplains.

Hint to the atheists: These justices have already shown they can hit that pitch. But, hey, it’s your money.

“McCain-Feingold busted

The court took a sledgehammer to the shaky foundation of a law Congress shouldn’t have passed, President Bush shouldn’t have signed, and a previous incarnation of the Supreme Court shouldn’t have let stand – because they all knew it was unconstitutional.

The Associated Press called it “a decision whose tone suggests greater hostility on the court to federal limitations on money in politics.”

Such negativity! What the court was showing was a positive affinity for political speech.

The only problems with the McCain-Feingold attempt to “take the money out of politics” were 1) it didn’t work, and 2) it couldn’t work. It’s a fact of American politics that money equates to speech. The idea of politicians picking and choosing who may criticize or question them – and when to allow the questions and the criticism – is just repugnant.

Now, how about some more lawsuits to take the clamps off of everyone who isn’t a union or a corporation?

“Paddle hits 4 Junior

A little history is in order on this one.

While at a school-sanctioned public event, Alaska high schooler Joseph Frederick holds up a banner that reads, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” and keeps holding it after being told to put it down. His principal suspends him for promoting drug abuse. Frederick’s family sues, and he contends that the sign meant nothing and that he was showing that he had a right to say something not worth saying. His father loses his job in connection with the lawsuit, young Frederick is forced to drop out of college and later is convicted of selling a leafy substance smoked in bongs.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose rulings have often seemed to betray a certain familiarity with bongs, sided with Frederick. The Supreme Court majority sided with common sense. Frederick exercised his right to free speech. No one hauled him away and locked him up. The only consequence was a 10-day school suspension that ended up becoming a Supreme Court case. Bad ideas apparently run in the Frederick family.

Two of Monday’s decisions were 5-4 votes, and the dissents contained sobering reminders that we’re just a heartbeat away from confusion reigning once again. Poor though President Bush’s domestic performance has been, he’s done right by the country with his Supreme Court appointments. One more would be nice.