Skip to comments.Federal judge to politicos: ‘You should be ashamed’ for comments in Texas school prayer suit
Posted on 02/09/2012 11:54:43 AM PST by Cincinatus' WifeEdited on 02/09/2012 12:03:19 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
SAN ANTONIO — A federal judge blasted by Newt Gingrich and other conservatives for his ruling that prohibited prayer at a Texas high school graduation is firing back in accepting a settlement to the case.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery on Thursday admonished those who “demagogued this case for their own political goals.” He then added, “You should be ashamed of yourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In May, Americans United filed a lawsuit challenging the Medina Valley, Texas Independent School District's plan to include student-led prayers in its graduation ceremony. The district court issued a broad preliminary injunction against prayer. (See prior posting.) The 5th Circuit quickly dissolved the preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.) Since then, Western District of Texas federal district Judge Fred Biery has filed several interim rulings with rather candid observations on the case which is captioned Schultz v. Medina Valley Independent School District. On Nov. 2, the court ruled on several motions, including allowing an amended complaint to be filed. In the opinion, Judge Biery said in part:
the parties are spending what appears to be inordinate amounts of money and time which could be better spent on educating students. That of course would require the parties, with the assistance of counsel, to find some reasonable compromise. Or as the modern urban philosopher Rodney King once said, [C]an we all get along?
On Nov. 28, the court filed a memorandum titled Observations on Approaching Jury Trial suggesting that the school district had already made concessions that should be sufficient for the parties to reach a settlement. Judge Biery concluded his observations as follows:
Nevertheless, if the parties choose to spend more money and take more time away from educating students, the Court will proceed with logistical jury trial planning, though the Court believes both sides will rue such choice. Jesus of Nazareth and St. Paul express the same lesson this way: You shall reap what you shall sow and They know not what they do.
In a Dec. 6 opinion, the court also expressed frank views on the decision of one of the plaintiffs to withdraw rather than disclose her identity as the court had said she must:
Throughout history, there have been people who take risks to stand up for what they believe to be right, and sometimes unfortunate consequences flow from their courage. Young people the same age as Corwin Schultz and Pat Doe lie in the cemeteries of Normandy because they did not shrink from their duty to scale the cliffs of Omaha Beach and ultimately defeat a government which would, if undefeated, have continued to oppress the Jewish minority.
Within the American Constitutional experience, Rosa Parks, Congressman John Lewis, and other African Americans could have gone quietly to the back of the bus, continued to go to separate restrooms and water fountains and subjugated their freedom and their right to vote to the will of the majority government holding power.
Finally, on Feb. 4, the court issued an Advisory on the right of student graduation speakers, given the school's agreement that it will not approve the student remarks:
Because of the governmental disclaimer, the student speaker's right under First Amendment concepts of free speech would allow for requests for private citizen audience participation in which private citizens might or might not join. For example, if a Muslim student were to be valedictorian, she or he could express a particular view verbally and physically within the Muslin tradition and the audience might or might not join in facing Mecca if requested.
On the other hand, those government officials on stage are, in that setting, not private citizens and represent the diverse religious and non-religious community as a whole. While the government official might agree with the student speaker, in the role of government official within First Amendment concepts of government not endorsing or promoting a particular religious belief, the government official should refrain from facing Mecca and expressing agreement while wearing the government hat.
Actually, he should be dropped in Waziristan with 3 days of food and water. Or Kabul.
This is one judge that will never be confused with Judge Narragansett.
Nothing like a tongue lashing from a blackrobed tyrant. Where do they find these sanctimonious lowlifes that often sell out to the highest bribe? Judicial corruption needs to return to the 3rd world.
The judge should be held in contempt of the people and the Constitution.
President Newt will offer no quarter.
Yeah, Biery will be one of the first to go. I look forward to the psycho-Left caterwauling, hair pulling and promises of violence.
I’m sure these Federal judges didn’t like Gov. Rick Perry calling for an end to their lifetime appointments.
Did the judge just hand Newt the Texas primary? He sure gave Newt a load of ammo! GO NEWT!
Waziristan or Kabul? The judge is anti-Christian, they’d like him over in the Caliphate...
The judges that feel empowered to go in any direction their tiny minds point them are the ones who need to be impeached and removed from the bench. With the government not having anything to do with education as per the constitution they therefor can not either forbid or demand prayer in schools.
Basically, this judge sided with one family who wanted their religious views (basically saying that they shouldn’t be subjected to any religious speech in public) FORCED upon the school district to such a point that the school district would have to SQUASH and step on the valedictorians freedom of speech rights! He said that the personal speech of the valedictorian must be “approved by” the school district and be free of religion or prayer! And he thinks that those who pointed out the stupidity and divisiveness of his ruling should be ashamed? IDIOT!
This compromise is the only thing that makes any sense! Basically, the school cannot sanction or set aside time for a “religious” break during school functions, but the people who are speaking are well within their right to speak of God and call on those present to set time aside or pray. DUH! This should have never even gone to court!
“...An avowed enemy to God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”Rev.John Witherspoon 1776 Fast Day Sermon just weeks before he left his office at (Princeton) to accept service in Congress.-and then he went back to Princeton after proving one can serve in Congress and be an Ordained Minister.
I scruple not to suggest it is the unjust Judge who has violated his/her/its oath of Office by this legal opinion contrary to what the Constitution declares supreme law of the land.
The best thing that the valedictorians of every graduating school should do is completely disregard this judge’s ruling and lead a prayer. What are the Feds and States going to do? Shoot, taze, beat and imprison them for doing such?
The best thing that the valedictorians of every graduating school should do is completely disregard this judges ruling and lead a prayer.
Where in the Constitution does it say squat diddley about govt. endorsement of religion being prohibited this Judge clearly has never read Joseph Story—Commentaries on the Constitution— nor the Judiciary Committee reports of 19 Jan.1853 and 27 March 1854 that speak of Chaplains and the meaning of the establishment clause. Neither has reflected the history leading to the Bill of Rights.ANd ignores Fundamental Law the twice passed Northwest Ordinance Article III Religion,Morality and Knowledge being necessary to Good Government and the happiness of mankind ,Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.And I suspect the good ol’boy never read any of the history of American Education Colonial era— Civil War. Nor that pamphlet published by Dr.Benjamin Rush -A defense of the use of the Bible in Schools.@1830 Note to da judge Dr.Rush , and Noah
Webster, even Thomas Jefferson as President DID NOT call for the use of the bloody freakin Koran in schools.
This judge has become a politician it sounds like
Tell us about 'shame' judge...
On November 19, 1993, Biery was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
“Judge Fred Bierys background shows that he isno surprisean active Democrat. He gave thousands of dollars in the early 1990s that ranged from the Texas Democratic Party to Bill Clintons presidential campaign. This is a perfect example of a wildly activist judge imposing his own views on the populaceand that is what is truly unconstitutional, not to mention unethical.”