H.R. 2679 - TAKES AWAY FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FROM ACLU !!!

thomas.loc.gov ^ | Friday, September 9, 2005

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Sorry for offending yours or other Freepers' sensibilities. I should have used less offensive phrasing.

[Marauder]

Bump!

[adam_az]

"Interesting idea. If it passed, would courts throw it out?"

Billybobn correct me if I'm wrong... but I believe that only the supreme court could throw this out.

Congress has authority over all the lower courts, including the circuit courts, and this is direction to them.

[Congressman Billybob]

There is zero doubt that this proposed law is constitutional. That is because it is an amendment to the 1976 Civil Rights Act in which Congress authorized the award of attorneys fees and costs.

The courts have awarded fees to the ACLU under the existing statute. And the Supreme Court has ruled that absent this statutory authority, none of the federal courts can award attorneys fees. So, what Congress itself has granted, Congress can take away. Not even Justice Ginsburg can stop this, IF CONGRESS ACTS.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Mayor Nagin: 10,000 Counts of Manslaughter"

[George W. Bush]

I should have used less offensive phrasing.

I try not to be a thread cop but I think we want to take the high road. I certainly didn't need an apology from you but perhaps you're more polite than I am. If you ever glance around at DU, you become aware how the more colorful kind of language can start to define an entire website and people soon don't feel they've made a strong opinion without some blue language. I've noticed over the years that if I let myself use that kind of language, pretty soon it takes over my speech habits. But maybe that's just me.

We don't want FR to go that way so I think that we can let the DUmmies beat us on that one thing.

Have a really good day, Tom.

[Colonel_Flagg]

This is what keeps the ACLU going. Suing for monetary damages in religion cases merely funds their next one. Cities who don't want to fight the ACLU settle for damages, and their operation rakes in the bucks.

[George W. Bush]

The courts have awarded fees to the ACLU under the existing statute. And the Supreme Court has ruled that absent this statutory authority, none of the federal courts can award attorneys fees. So, what Congress itself has granted, Congress can take away.

This simple fact needs to be pounded into people's heads. This would be a wonderful topic for Rush and other conservative commentators to take up.

So thank you for that important public service announcement, congressman.

[Congressman Billybob]

And thank you, Mr. President, for taking notice of my humble contribution.

Your dedicated supporter (unless your wrong, like on immigration),

Congressman Billybob

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

You're right and that's why I apologized. See ya around for future highbrow debate. :O)

[Randy Larsen]

Way to go! I can appreciate someone who knows when to say "I'm Wrong"...You're a real class act and I for one respect you very highly for that.

[little jeremiah]

pingout tomorrow.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes AND Homosexual Agenda Two-fer.

FYI - this bill NEEDS TO PASS AND GET SIGNED. Freep your representatives, senators, whatever. If the ACLU is defunded by OUR tax money, it will be largely de-fanged. It is one of the most dangerous organizations and it is attempting to undermine everything that makes our country valuable. It is truly a vile, contemptible organization. If any of you don't know much about the ACLU, do a search on it and read up. It was started by avowed communists with the goal to disrupt and undermine the US.

Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2k if you want on/off the H.A. ping list, and freepmail ME only if you want on/off the M.A. list.

[tuesday afternoon]

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'.

Can anyone decode this for me? What is injunctive relief? What is subsection (b) and who doesn't get the fees?

[11th_VA]

BUMP - Needed now more than ever !!!

[11th_VA]

What is injunctive relief?

From Google: An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels ("enjoins" or "restrains") a party from continuing a particular activity. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal contempt of court and may have to pay damages or sanctions for failing to follow the court's order.

Basiclly, for example, if ACLU were to win a case involving 'a cross on public property,' the 'injuctive relief' would be, removal of the cross - no award fees what so ever, unless the losing party failed to abide by the court order.

[tuesday afternoon]

Thanks for the info.

[fgoodwin]

Companion Senate Bill: S. 3696; thread here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1676441/posts

sponsored by Sen. Brownback.

[Maeve]

Big BUMP and PING

[pray4liberty]

Prayer bump