Kevin

It's high time that the influential moderates like you realized that moderation works only among rational actors.

This crowd is not rational.

The big deal here is that the media is failing miserably at informing the public that such legislation is in the pipleline and close to passage. We need a mechanism where that brings visibility and transparency to the legislative process. A lot of very bad bills get snuck through in the dark of night, and sometimes the final version is different from the version that was sent out of committee. This is unacceptable.

Hopefully this piece of shit will die in the Senate.

End tax exemption for religious organizations now.

global, you're on target. I heard they are also working on removing the deduction for interest paid on home loans. The local media only mentioned that once and then it fell of the radar screen. It's like they were told to back off or something like that. Same for the attorney fees law. Without looking at this paper I wouldn't have known about it at all.

I don't see the point of Congressional action to hinder lawsuits challenging violations of the separation between church and state. Wouldn't God just strike dead any lawyer who'd dare file such a suit? I thought Republicans were people of faith!

The Constitution is the opiate of the moderate and liberal masses.

To Radical Republicans, the guys now in power, it is just a "god dammed piece of paper."

So the next time the ACLU goes to court to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas or gets involved in any similar cases.

Dumbasses. They are such dumbasses. Cutting off their nose to spite their face dumbasses. They don't have a clue why the Establishment clause is important for everyone from atheists to Anglicans. freethinkers to Falwellites.

But while they presumably think that since it's a Christian nation full ' Christians this sort of thing doesn't matter, I have a suspicion that if this becomes law they'll end up with a bit of a refresher course . . .

My first sentence was supposed to end with - oh, y'all are bright, you can finish it by yourselves. I need to go make myself a nice soothing cup of tea . . .

I have a feeling that if this becomes law, even this supreme court will overturn it.

if they can't change the law, they simply stop enforcing it.

Actually, Kevin, this goes farther than that in that it's an actual deterrent to enforcing the law-- or more accurately in this case, a major deterrent to citizens even invoking the law, which has an even nastier Orwellian flavor to it-- and I seem to remember reading that some of the similar cases also involved putting roadblocks in the way of enforcement.

Don't know if you remember but...when Judge Roy Moore in Alabama wanted to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse, a Congressman introducewd a bill to withhold funding for the Federal Marshalls assigned to remove the monument. As if that would abrogate a Federal court order.

I have a feeling that if this becomes law, even this supreme court will overturn it.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 1, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Scotus has always had a nack for avoiding doing it's job, when it wants. They just refuse to hear the case. Say What?

This is sadly neccesary. The ACLU has made millions by suing towns who dare celebrate Christmas (OMG, a Christmas tree! BURN IT!), getting the case in front of a democrat judge, and having any acknowledgement of Christianity ruled unconstitutional. As is their duty, the legislature has checked the judiciary. If it's *really* important, somebody will pony up the cash to sue.

Shorter American Hawk: One dollar, one vote.

Where are these towns? I lived in Lane County Oregon, home of Eugene (the city so nice they gave it a first name.) Eugene is the most liberal city in one of the most liberal states in the union. The Christmas Parade in Junction City was a holiday event with all the trimmings.

I keep hearing about "Christianity under siege" but I never see it.

Tell you what, Hawkster, I'll trade all the "millions" raked in by the ACLU (funny as that mind fart of a "concept" is to begin with), for all the dough raked in by the American Taliban (Falwell, Dobson, etc.) regarding just this issue alone.

American Chickenhawk: The ACLU has made millions by suing towns who dare celebrate Christmas . . .

Another bald-faced lie.

Another typical day for the Chickenhawk.

...we're really getting close to a "bumpersticker" idea here:

If they can't change the law, they'll stop enforcing it.

Otherwise, they won't follow it either... setting up buildings and conveyances and prisons that operate outside the law. And who operates "outside the law"? ...that'd be "outlaws."

Worked that way with Iran-Contra.

BTW, Rumsfeld refusing to resign is the biggest gift the GOP and Bush can give to the Dems.

The longer Bush sticks with his fellow incompetent boob and the worst SecDef in US history and the more conservatives and congressional Republicans stick up for him, the worse the GOP looks and the better the Dems chances in November.

Senate and House are both nearly in Democratic hands and even if they come up a few members short, they will have Bush and the GOP by the scruff of the neck - the Bush administration is dead and the rest of the GOP is circling the drain.

It's not just the lack of fees, the bill passed by the House bars a plaintiff from recovering compensatory damages. I know for a fact that its already having an effect on settlements were damages were stark and obvious.

" The ACLU has made millions by suing towns who dare celebrate Christmas."

AmeriSquawk, do you actually know anything about real life? The ACLU is non-profit and anyway, you don't get any money by sueing towns or schools for discriminatory behavior.

On the other hand, when the gov't blows shit up and spends taxpayer dollars to have it rebuilt by Halliburton—you know, a for-profit corporation formerly run by Dick Cheney—that's just hunky-dory, right?

At least stick to facts, A-H. They are easy to find with Google, you know. Or are you one of those "reality is what we say it is" conservatives? (Or as I like to call them, pathologically delusional.)

The Supreme Court will overturn it?
Have you looked at that line up, lately?
We are seeing the effects of a one party state begin to emerge. Corruption, cover up, and the persecution of whistle-blowers have become SOP. This is part and parcel of this pattern.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think nine is a proscribed number. FDR just decided that 15 justices were 66% better than nine and packed the sucker. Has that solution been remedied.

This law is to keep Foley from trying to sue over his free speech rights to 16 year old boys.

Another typical day for the Chickenhawk.

Well, not quite. He just reminded me that my ACLU fees are due, and given this topic, I think I'll add a few more bucks. They are pretty much the only thing between us and a theocracy now.

Really, we should get Fokey together with Hawk. They could roll around in their mutual patriotism and decry how the bad libruls keep misunderstanding the pure motives of gay homophobes.

Seems to me this has a lot to do with the beloved Global War on Muslims. Don't want a lot of frivolous lawsuits just because we snatched your neighborhood Imam for the terrorism equivalent of Mopery with Intent to Gawk and sent him off to our crypto pals in Syria for some alternative interrogation techniques, do we?

American Hawk - I'll second the call for actual citations. Details can be very informative, including little things like which side the ACLU was fighting for. The candy cane case I brought up above, for example, was repeatedly mentioned as one where the ACLU and crazy liberals were persecuting little Christian kids, even though the ACLU was actually defending them.

latts: Actually, Kevin, this goes farther than that in that it's an actual deterrent to enforcing the law-- or more accurately in this case, a major deterrent to citizens even invoking the law, which has an even nastier Orwellian flavor to it-- and I seem to remember reading that some of the similar cases also involved putting roadblocks in the way of enforcement.

Exactly right. This is equivalent to calling to report a burglary and having the police agree to come out only if they are paid a fee up front.

We live in a fascist state. It is no longer debatable. Only when moderates report that fact will there be a hope of reversing it. Their fear makes them part of it, doing harm and causing dangers to their fellow citizens -- and eventually to themselves.

3 quick thoughts:
1) If the bill just restricts the right to attorney fees, it's not clear that it's Unconstitutional - the Constitution allows for vindication of civil rights in Court, but it doesn't specify remedies.
2) If the bill restricts compensatory damages, then it might be Unconstitutional - but again, there are other remedies, such as injunctions.
3) If we want to win this one, we need to find a bunch of adorable religious minorities bringing free exercise claims - of course, the religious right has everything to do with majority members feel better than minorities, rather than with, say, religion.
4) The ACLU is not always awesome.

I heard they are also working on removing the deduction for interest paid on home loans.

They are probably working on a new bill to make both interest and principal deductable for home loans over $1 million, however.

This law will turn around and bite them.
The Christian Scientists and the Jehova Witnesses are going to find court ordered medical treatment for their children very offensive. The Catholics won't like to see their confessors jailed for refusing to testify, either. Nor are the Moonies and a few other zealous evangelicals going to like their members prosecuted for extra-leagal detentions, kidnappings, and extortion.
All of these activities are currently being defended, in part, by the separations clause.

BTW, all of these groups sue the gvt over these issues (and usually win), but the only ones likely to abandon such suits due to cost are small potatoes. The others (jehovas, Crist. Scien, Catholic church, and the Moonies) will definately raise a stink, though, just like they did when these charges (all of them) were brought in Japan against the tiny cult AUM Shinrikyou which was responcible for the Tokyo subway sarin gas terrorist attack.

Pissing these folks off will not go well for the GOP.

Because I'm from San diego, I think it's a way to keep the Soledad Mountain cross on the hill. But I could be wrong about that.

As for law enforcement, the Republicans have gutted the funding for any Department of Interior regulation, unless it helps their buddies in gaming, oil, off-road recreation, and mining suck off the public's land.

It's funny that we never hear back from Al or ChickenPlucked when they are caught in outright lies. And yet these unAmerican bozos always show up the next day, smirking with faux-superiority, as if they hadn't been tarred and feathered the night before.

American Hawk's silence speaks volumes.

Here's one of the ways the EPA is being hobbled.
http://peer.org/campaigns/epa_library
But who needs to fight pollution? After all, it doesn't kill people.

The abrupt shutdown of federal libraries reminds me of
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/photos/bebel/bebel04.htm

You think I'm bitter and shrill? You betcha.
There still some hope, however:

EPA’s library closures (which the agency euphemistically calls “deaccessioning procedures”) are sparking congressional scrutiny. On September 19th, the Ranking Members of the House Committee on Science, Energy & Commerce and Government Reform (Reps. Bart Gordon (D-TN), John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), respectively) asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the effects that the EPA library closures will have on access to environmental information and the impacts on scientific research, regulatory quality and enforcement capability.

It's funny that we never hear back from Al or ChickenPlucked when they are caught in outright lies. And yet these unAmerican bozos always show up the next day, smirking with faux-superiority, as if they hadn't been tarred and feathered the night before.

If it weren't for fast-acting amnesia there wouldn't be nut-jobs like these.

The struggle against the right is the struggle against lawlessness. Nice guys finish last & Laws-are-for-losers.

*And "only the little people pay taxes"! (Leona Helmsley)

It's funny how the law-and-order crowd (Dick Wolf not included) so often turn out to be anarchists, in their own Tom DeLay way. Guess it's always been like that—gotta watch out for the righteous chest-thumpers.

There used to be something called the National Labor Relations Board. Believe it or not, it was charged with protecting workers' rights and enforcing labor law.

Now I'm saddened to hear that the EPA, the IRS, and now the courts are falling prey to the same phenomenon, but it's not new. I guess the labor crowd were the canaries in the coal mine.

Global Citizen: FDR just decided that 15 justices were 66% better than nine and packed the sucker.

Roosevelt tried, but the Senate killed the bill.

They, to me, are having to sell off social infrastructure to pay for the bankrupt budget practices of the fiscally irresponsible GOP.

They are so far in the Red already it's insane.

Global Citizen: FDR just decided that 15 justices were 66% better than nine and packed the sucker.
Roosevelt tried, but the Senate killed the bill.

As I say as a moderate, shouldn't justice be blind, you know that blindfolded women holding the scales?

As a moderate both parties 'need to cut that shit out' =)

It is quite clear what they want to do. It is the thing that connects suspension of habeas, wire tapping, removing court jurisdiction, and the litany of de-enforcements Kevin lists. They want to remove the established Rule of Law and supplement it with their prerogatives.

They want to cuts holes in the Constitution and replace law with politics. This is what is underneath the unitary executive. The tribunals he creates do not dispense justice; because they are circumstantial, they dispense politics. It is Jim Crow gerrymanding for liberal democracy and the constitutional order.

OsamsBeenForgotten,

For one of the rare times, I agree with you. Tax exemptions should be ended for all organizations.

So, Kevin, you like "loser pays" for civil cases?

Libertarian and anti-creationist blogger Ed Brayton has been deflating the "ACLU hates Christianity" myth for some time, offering up numerous examples of the organization fighting on behalf of Christians. Someone upthread brought up the famous candy cane case, but Ed also frequently point out that the ACLU has been very active defending street preachers in states across the country. To me, this a great deflator of the meme that liberals want to remove religon from the public square. Funny then that the despised ACLU has been working to defend the right of religious people to stand in public places and preach. I guess the dinstiction between "religion in the public square" and "government endorsement of religion" is too... nuanced?

Liberals have made millions sending good Christians to slave camps in North Korea, where they are converted into Manchurian candidates and then come back to run for Congress as Democrats. I have the proof right here in my diapers.

The general rule in American law is that each side bears its own legal fees. The problems with this are manifest. However, it's ridiculous to cure this by saying that only one side can collect if it prevails. The right answer is to adopt the English rule, that the prevailing side can recover its reasonable attorney's fees. If you sue the federal governement or GM and win, you collect. If you sue the federal government or GM and lose, you pay. That's only fair. Why should the government or GM have to pay to defend a meritless lawsuit? Why should I have to pay to prosecute a lawsuit with merit?

DBL,

I would assume that by "reasonable" you mean that if GM hired twenty attorneys, and you hired one but lost the case, that you would not be charged for the twenty, but rather, one?

DBL,

I''m not defending your legal system but you can see there are differences in the two situations?

in the first case one of the parties has in the opinion of the court done a wrong

in the second case none of the parties is deemed to be wrong. It's simply that one of the parties has in the opinion of the court wrongly felt the other party had done a wrong.

Not exactly the same.

gimme a toke of that, mhr.

The government, ie the taxpayers, underwrite organizations like the ACLU

The ACLU does not receive funding from the federal government.

But it turns out that House Republicans think that some civil right are more worth protecting than others. Under a new bill that just passed the House, if you sue the government for violating your religious freedom you'll be out of luck whether you turn out to be right or not.

Kevin, you need to read carefully and not reinterpret to make your description less accurate than that of your source when it doesn't even improve brevity. The law does not prevent you from recovering attorney's fees when "your religious freedom" is the basis of the action, only when the Establishment Clause is the basis. This is rather important, because if your description were correct, then this would support government action against religion as strongly as government action for religion, as both involve "religious freedom"; the former usually challenged under the Free Exercise Clause, the latter under the Establishment Clause.

Although, if this goes into effect, I suspect will be seeing some novel arguments recasting actions that have historically been the kind that would be the focus of Establishment Clause litigation as being violations of the Free Exercise Clause, or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or...

The government, ie the taxpayers, underwrite organizations like the ACLU which stalk the country looking for "violations of civil rights," by paying the fees of ACLU attorneys who file lawsuits.

Uh, no. Only the fees of ACLU lawyers who win lawsuits. Of course, if the government wasn't violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens in the first place, then it wouldn't be paying any attorney's fees under the law permitting the recovery of attorney's fees for Constitutional violations.

So, Kevin, you like "loser pays" for civil cases?

I would think even you would recognize that the government exceeding its Constitutional authority against its citizens is an actor situated differently than the usual participant in civil litigation, and that therefore support for "government pays when it acts against its citizens outside of its Constitutional powers" does not rationally imply support for "loser pays in civil cases" generally.

This law will turn around and bite them. The Christian Scientists and the Jehova Witnesses are going to find court ordered medical treatment for their children very offensive. The Catholics won't like to see their confessors jailed for refusing to testify, either. Nor are the Moonies and a few other zealous evangelicals going to like their members prosecuted for extra-leagal detentions, kidnappings, and extortion. All of these activities are currently being defended, in part, by the separations clause.

There is no "separations clause", and none of those things you list are prevented by the Establishment Clause, which is the provision actually effected. Most of those aren't protected by any Constitutional provisions, they either aren't prosecuted because of statutory privileges, or they aren't prosecuted for lack of evidence. The medical treatments one is the only one that is Constitutionally protected in certain cases, and there it is by the Free Exercise Clause, which this bill leaves untouched.

There are things that would bug the JWs, I'm sure, that have been done before that would be Establishment Clause violations, but then the Christian Right (and many theologically mainstream Christians outside of that umbrella) view the JWs as a "pseudo-Christian cult" anyway, and don't really care too much what they think.

mhr: Best parody of an idiot troll yet! Sorry, I mean "idiot troll".

This is off-topic but there is really good read in the NYT magazine about Howard Dean's and his vision for the party.

At one point Dean was thinking about starting his own party.

I really wish he had had the courage to have done exactly that, because of the fact the party keeps voting for things like Bush's horrible detainee bill, and the centrist party talk about how we just need to support them anyway, and other forms of bullshit like that.

At one point in time, Dean could scared the holy heck out the Democratic party. The MoveOn.org doesn't really belong to the Dem party anyway, what with centrist Dems spitting on these people even harder that Republicans do.

I'd say the bill is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, unless the House kills the original 42 United States Code section 1988.

cmdicely,
sorry about the vocab screwup, establishment clause & free exercise clause are what I meant. Anyway, the point is that they are not going to be pleased when they are made to pay up front to bring these suits against state and local governments in federal court.

As for your overly opitimistic view that the religious right would let JW or the Christian Scientist hang is unwarrented. All of the major evangelical churches, came to the defense of AUM here in Japan in spite of the undeniable fact of two terrorist attacks with poison gas, an assassination, and numerous extra-legal executions (and dozens of kidnappings and extra-legal imprisonments) of members who had attempted to leave the cult.

The muslims do not have a monopoly on enforsing a religion-based legal code on members (and non-members who have social contact with members) in direct violation of the laws of the country they live in. Policing, apprehention of the accused, detention, judicial proceedings, and punishments are carried out with the acquiesence of the membership and in direct violation of national law. The AUM legal proceedings very nearly opened that whole can of worms for the world to see. It took nearly two weeks to get the issue out of the news coverage here in Japan and the whole time a coalition of evangelical religious organizations (moonies and Catholics working together!) kept "violation of religious freedom" articles along side interviews of investegators and proescuters.

These folks are very defensive of their perogatives and won't appreciate having to pay for the privilage of brow-beating state and local prosecutors.

We offer a variety of travel related services, including save money on discount travel, travel guides, cheap insurance quotes,discount hotels, hotel chains, cheap airfare online, and discount car rental.

AQW1 AQW2 AQW3 AQW4 AQW5 AQW6 AQW7 AQW8 AQW9 AQW10 AQW11 AQW12 AQW13 AQW14 AQW15 AQW16 AQW17 AQW18 AQW19 AQW20 AQW21 AQW22 AQW23 AQW24 AQW25 AQW26 AQW27 AQW28 AQW29 AQW30 AQW31 AQW32 AQW33 AQW34 AQW35 AQW36 AQW37 AQW38 AQW39 AQW40 AQW41 AQW42 AQW43 AQW44 AQW45 AQW46 AQW47 AQW48 AQW49 AQW50 AQW51 AQW52 AQW53 AQW54 AQW55 AQW56 AQW57 AQW58 AQW59 AQW60 AQW61 AQW62 AQW63 AQW64 AQW65 AQW66 AQW67 AQW68 AQW69 AQW70 AQW71 AQW72 AQW73 AQW74 AQW75 AQW76 AQW77 AQW78 AQW79 AQW80 AQW81 AQW82 AQW83 AQW84 AQW85 AQW86 AQW87 AQW88 AQW89 AQW90 AQW91 AQW92 AQW93 AQW94 AQW95

sorry about the vocab screwup, establishment clause & free exercise clause are what I meant.

You still seem to miss the point. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are two different provisions, only the Free Exercise Clause is likely to be relevant to any of the things you cite (though, again, most of them are either not legally protected now, or are protected by statutory, not Constitutional, provisions), and only litigation under the Establishment Clause is affected by this legislation.

Anyway, the point is that they are not going to be pleased when they are made to pay up front to bring these suits against state and local governments in federal court.

Since its expressly limited to Establishment Clause suits, but not 14th Amendment suits, it would be interesting to see how the courts apply it when protections similar to or identical to those in the bill of rights are applied to the states under the 14th Amendment...

But at any rate, your list consists entirely of things unlikely to be affected, in any case.

As for your overly opitimistic view that the religious right would let JW or the Christian Scientist hang is unwarrented. All of the major evangelical churches, came to the defense of AUM here in Japan in spite of the undeniable fact of two terrorist attacks with poison gas, an assassination, and numerous extra-legal executions (and dozens of kidnappings and extra-legal imprisonments) of members who had attempted to leave the cult.

Yeah, the United States isn't Japan. Here, the religio-political conservatives of the stripe now referred to as the "Christian Right" (though the name is newer than the group) were often supportive of the Church/State entanglements that JW's have challenged (successfully, often) as infringements on their religious freedom, including mandatory recital of the pledge of allegiance in public schools.

The muslims do not have a monopoly on enforsing a religion-based legal code on members (and non-members who have social contact with members) in direct violation of the laws of the country they live in.

Insofar as this is true, its completely irrelevant to the legislation at hand.

...and the whole time a coalition of evangelical religious organizations (moonies and Catholics working together!)...

Neither the Unification Church nor the Catholic Church are "evangelical religious organizations" as that term is usually used. I'm not sure what you are using "evangelical" to mean here.

These folks are very defensive of their perogatives and won't appreciate having to pay for the privilage of brow-beating state and local prosecutors.

What you don't seem to understand is that, inasmuch as their privileges in this regard are based on the Constitution, it is almost entirely on the Free Exercise clause, which is unaffected. This bill was designed for (and quite likely by) the Christian Right, it isn't going to anger them at all.

I agree with what you said earlier.