Posted on 01/06/2007 2:18:16 PM PST by Jay777
Tired of all the frivolous Establishment Clause lawsuits being filed over one individual being offended by a religious symbol without ever having to show any merit or proof of actual injury? Well the ACLJ are hoping to stop that special privilege so often abused church-state separation advocates.
There are people who, just because they pay taxes, file suit challenging federal government actions that supposedly give unconstitutional support to religion. In no other area of the law does the Court allow this kind of legal standing to bring challenges. For years, atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion and who want to remove every religious reference from American public life, have had a special privilege in federal court. Unlike everyone else, church-state separation advocates have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could bring a challenge in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers. In essence, separationists have had a free reign to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits throughout the country just because they were “taxpayers.” Simply put, that’s unfair. No other citizen can just sue because they pay taxes. It should be the same in the religion cases, and the Supreme Court has an opportunity to say “no” to these plaintiffs once and for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
About time.
If the All Commie Litigation Union didn't make millions shilling for plaintiffs and then filing lawsuits, these suits would dry up instantly.
True. Also, they should at least have to show that they break out in a rash or something.
I want to see bills from psychiatrists - who could then be put on the stand to admit that their clients are nuts, but it's not due to the manger scene . . . .
Not that I'd do that, but why should they be allowed to go to court without injury.
I'm trying to find out...if anyone might be able to help...do free speech cases have to prove actual injury to be heard? Are free speech cases held to the same standard when it comes to standing as Establishment Clause cases?
I'd just be happy for someone to point out this "wall of separation between Church and State" thing. I've never actually found it in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights...
The fact that they have been given standing in the past makes them a defacto religion. Therefore the purge of all things religious from the public square is definitely an establishment clause violation, placing the gubermint in the position of promoting a state religion - Atheism.
That would have to be done by statute. Attorney fees are awarded to the "prevailing party" in civil rights actions under federal law. The rationale was to give poor "victims" the ability to bring claims against abusive governmental entities. The law should be amended to eliminate attorney fees in "establishment clause" cases only.
Or maybe require that the plaintiff "victim" show actual harm in order to get attorney fees . . . something along the lines of the old Georgia "impact rule".
I urge everyone to visit the aclj.org frequently - lots of great info there.
I have called Jay Seculo's radio show several times, and get some good insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.