speaking of roll calls

[acroyear]

both Davis and Wolf (Northern VA's representatives) voted yes to the bill that would "protect" the government from establishment clause lawsuits, thus allowing the theocracy of the mad to proceed apace without anyone able to afford the court challenge.

Here's the catch-22 about the madness here: you can't sue to call this potential law unconstitutional until it affects you, and you can't have it affect you until you sue for an establishment clause breach and win, and then you have to be able to pony up the money to your legal firm (since pro bono won't exist because the good-guy lawyers do that on the grounds of winning some of it back and the law would prevent them from ever collecting).  and THEN you can sue again (if you have any money left) to have the law itself declared unconstitutional.  In short - nobody can afford to do that.

it is one hell of a potential legal loophole, all to allow this nation to promote one particularly insidious brand of christianity at the expense of every other religion or reasonable person out there.

Yes, I'm pissed.

No individual clause of the constution should be any more or less important than any other, and the contempt for the law document that gives them their power just completely disgusts me.

Your bill of rights has just taken one hell of a hit from these madmen.  Truly, it is time to kick them out and replace them with people who respect the real source of their power - the consent of the people, not the God on high.

Comments

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like anyone in politics is any better. *sigh* I would be shocked if the new crowd would revoke the law, though.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, it ain't a law yet and isn't likely to even get a vote in the senate this term...

[dashrippington.livejournal.com]

I have ALWAYS been a firm believer that the only presence that the government should make in reference to religion is to make the law that allows the American Populous to be entitled to worship any diety they so choose without the risk of persecution of those that believe differently!

This sickens me. I may not believe in any GOD... but I'll fight to my death to protect your rights to worship some Pecculi smelling, pot smoking hippy named Guenther... if that is you wish to do so.

I am of the belief that the American Government has stepped in to the lives of the American people too far. There are no more freedoms to be had. Not one person can do what they want, when there is one other person that will stop at nothing to prevent your happiness. Laws are too intrusive... and the government feels like they are ABOVE the laws that they themselves have created.

Sick Sick Sick... gonna go barf on the constitution... all the politians have. Not one Politician got to office because they wanted to serve the public. They got in for the power and the pay. Even if the people WERE the ones that they got into politics to help... they sure as HELL forget that reason once they take office.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

If you look at some of the arguments made for the bill, they bring up a valid point. Specifically, many of the lawyers fees currently imposed in such cases amount to a violation of the 8th ammendment against imposing excessive fines. A lawsuit over a Cross or the Ten Commandments can lead to a million dollar award as "legal fees," and that's beyond the means of many county and local governments.

However, the current bill is the wrong apporach, for all of the reasons you've already stated. A better approach would be to put caps on such awards, or better yet, on the legal fees themselves.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

Um...no. The "million-dollar award" is compensation for the amount of time that the lawyers who brought the case spent on it. Essentially, these lawyers work for free if they lose, but if they win, they might receive compensation for their time. In my experience, "attorneys fees" awards tend to be close to, but less than, the amount of time actually spent--they are never a jackpot for the lawyers.

Moreover, the Eighth Amendment argument is what we lawyers call frivolous. It says that you can't impose an excessive fine on a person who commits a crime. It has no application whatsoever to civil lawsuits.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification on the 8th. I didn't realize it only applied to criminal cases. I have to admit I was parroting one of the pro-HR 2679 sites I was checking out.

The specific million-dollar example they cited was the Dover board-of-ed case regarding intelligent design. The board lost, and was required to pay a million in lawyers' fees. The actual lawyers fees were more than double that, but the law firm waived the remaining fees. Still, Dover had to pay the million, plus their own lawyers, and (I presume) other court costs.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

which should become a deterent to other school systems risking installing creationism in public science education.

granted, subsequent plaintiffs could probably save money (on both sides) by just having the findings of fact from Kitzmiller admitted as-is, if the judge is willing (and most would be at this point).

but we still have the eventual "teach the controversy" lawsuit to win in Kansas and/or Ohio, whichever becomes stupid first. Kansas's ass has been saved, at least for a little while, by the primary elections last month. Ohio keeps bouncing back and forth, much to Columbus's consternation.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i'm with mandrakan here.

the compensation law (that's having establishment suits be an exception in this bill) is meant as a deterent to the government not passing blatantly unconstitutional laws and as an encouragement for the people to assert their rights when the government violates them.

the compensation is not an "award". when a lawsuit is filed, such as Dover's ID policy in Kitzmiller, the suit is normally for merely an injunction plus standard financial fee: $1.00. nobody asks the government for money when they say that a school system has refused an islamic group from renting school property (while still allowing a christian group to do so). nobody asks for money from the government when a school system promotes public school prayer in its morning announcements. nobody asks for money from the government when a jackass judge puts up a huge concrete representation of the ten commandments (7 of which would themselves be unconstitutional), at taxpayer expense, in the middle of a court building.

they ask that the government stop doing the blatantly unconstitional act and treat all religions equally and fairly.

as for the compensation - the lawyers in Kitzmiller cost and/or spent about 2.5 million dollars. the settlement is only giving them 1 million back. they are eating 1.5 million because the government blatantly violated establishment law and precedent. challenging the constitutionality of the government's actions is neither cheap nor profitable.

it merely looks good on a resume when we win.

you can't cap legal fees - every document you present to a court costs money. every minute spent in the courtroom costs money. every witness you bring in costs money.

it all adds up very quickly, and there's no way to cap it and keep the trial fair without the taxpayers picking up the rest of the slack (for suits they may not believe in). and in a civil suit (unlike a criminal one), you pay for every dime if you're the plaintiff.