Render Unto Plaintiffs That Which is Plaintiff's
---
I rarely comment on symbolic bills that only make their way through one chamber of Congress (usually the House) and have no chance whatsoever of actually being enacted.
But this one is just too enraging:
Of course, one might argue that such a law would itself violate the Establishment Clause. And I don't see "regulate legal fees" anywhere among the enumerated powers of Congress ("establishing federal courts" is not the same as micro-managing them or selectively denying legal remedies to a subset of litigants).
What possible legal justification could there be for such a sweeping, context-dropping law? None, of course. But political justification? Plenty:
And remind me again why judges should feel compelled to defer to hack politicians like these?
The bill is the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act, H.R. 2679. The corresponding Senate version is S. 3696 and is, fortunately, stalled in committee.
(Via How Appealing. See also here.)
But this one is just too enraging:
The House passed a bill yesterday that would bar judges from awarding legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups that sue municipalities for violating the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion.Keep in mind that this applies even when the plaintiffs win — when a government body indeed violates the First Amendment. Even then, under this obnoxious bill, no legal fees could be awarded. Justice may be blind, but it better not be broke too.
Though the bill would prevent plaintiffs from recovering legal costs in any lawsuit based on the Establishment Clause, House Republicans said during a floor debate that it was particularly aimed at organizations that force the removal of Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from public property.
Of course, one might argue that such a law would itself violate the Establishment Clause. And I don't see "regulate legal fees" anywhere among the enumerated powers of Congress ("establishing federal courts" is not the same as micro-managing them or selectively denying legal remedies to a subset of litigants).
What possible legal justification could there be for such a sweeping, context-dropping law? None, of course. But political justification? Plenty:
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said the measure is "election-year red meat for the Christian right, because they've been complaining they haven't gotten enough from this Congress."On the other hand, if tertiary tinker-around-the-edges stupidities such as this are the best that the Red State Redneck members of Congress can come up with, then they must really be getting desperate. Good.
And remind me again why judges should feel compelled to defer to hack politicians like these?
The bill is the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act, H.R. 2679. The corresponding Senate version is S. 3696 and is, fortunately, stalled in committee.
(Via How Appealing. See also here.)
Posted by Kip on
29 September 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.