Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Agape Press has an article about Rees Lloyd's testimony in favor of HR 2679. As usual, it's chock full of half-truths and falsehoods. And as usual, STACLU cites it approvingly without bothering to correct any of those falsehoods. For instance:
The ACLU received half a million dollars from the Alabama Ten Commandments case, and $950,000 in attorneys fees in a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts. Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the AFA Law Center and a constitutional law specialist, says the ACLU is able to collect these fees because of an obscure provision of the Civil Rights Act, which PERA is designed to amend.
First of all, there is nothing the least bit obscure about the fee shifting provision. It's well known, and it's used by every plaintiff who takes the government to court for violating the Constitution - including the ADF and the AFA, where Crampton works. Talk about hypocrisy. More importantly, it isn't true that the ACLU received those amounts in those cases. That may have been the amount that was awarded to the plaintiff (because they won the case, remember), but that's not what the ACLU actually got. Rees Lloyd knows better, he's been involved in such cases.
He knows the difference between fees and costs, and he knows that the bulk of the legal work is usually done not by the ACLU but by a private law firm. Out of such awards first has to come all of the costs of the litigation, which can be very high depending on how long the case dragged on, how many depositions were taken, and so forth. Then in most cases, the bulk of the fees will go not to the ACLU but to the private law firm that handled the case. In most such cases, the ACLU will end up with only a small portion in legal fees, but even then they can only recover the fees for the billable hours their attorneys actually put in on the case. So the rewards merely cover the expense of the trial. It's hardly a profitable thing to do.
"It was really just the ACLU and its like organizations on the left that ever benefited from this provision," Crampton contends.
This is a baldfaced lie and Crampton damn well knows it. There have been lots of cases where conservative Christian legal groups have sued the government for violating the constitution, won, and been reimbursed for expenses just like the ACLU. Is he seriously going to claim that the ACLJ didn't get reimbursed for costs and fees in Lamb's Chapel? Or that the plaintiffs in Mergens and Good News Club didn't get the same benefit when they won? If you have to resort to lies to back up your position, your position must be awfully weak.
Comments
Not only do the conservative legal groups benefit from fee-shifting provisions, any bellyaching that "liberal" groups benefit more is misplaced. "Liberal" groups are the ones who have historically been representing plaintiffs in civil rights suits.
Fee-shifting provisions make a great deal of sense. They foster a system of "private attorneys general," so to speak. If we, as a society, seriously want civil rights protected, we have two choices: 1) fund large AG offices (with lots of attorneys) who will actually go prosecute the claims; or 2) provide for fee-shifting, so people can prosecute thier own claims.
Posted by: friend
| July 6, 2006 11:55 AM
Onwards christian liars (pronounced "law-yers").
What else can you say?
Posted by: SharonB
| July 6, 2006 12:25 PM
Why should they care whether anti-ACLU propaganda is the truth or a lie? Lies, truth, they don't care, their followers don't care. Look at the recent mess of Davescot publishing this hoax email on Uncommonly Dense:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1141
Several people pointed out that it's an email hoax, and he doesn't care. He just changed a few things. The original hoax referred to "ACLU spokesman Lucian Traveler". When Davetard was referred to the ACLU statement that no Lucian Traveler is, or has ever been, an ACLU spokesman, Davetard changed it to "a rumored spokesman for the ACLU". Lies, truth, who cares? If it bashes the enemy, it's good.
They know they're right. Whatever supports them must be good, whether it's written in stone or a complete fabrication. They are mindless fanatics.
Posted by: steve s
| July 6, 2006 1:19 PM
Rees Lloyd? Oh my! I've had some contact with him and it wasn't pleasant. I was a member of an organization performing the music of Wales that he helped found; he then turned around and sued it because it wasn't sufficiently Welsh.
Given what I know of him, I'm not terribly surprised by the quality and nature of his testimony on this bill.
Posted by: ArtK
| July 6, 2006 1:29 PM
I've had just about enough of you calling people liars simply because they lie. Have you no decency, man? I'll see YOU in Cleveland this weekend.
Posted by: Maj. M.T. Rational XXXIV
| July 6, 2006 6:05 PM
If the ACLU is making all that money, then it has a lot of nerve asking me for donations! Clearly most of the money the ACLU "makes" goes to private attorneys and other expenses, and the anti-ACLU types probably know that but care not to share that knowledge with their supporters.
Posted by: wheatdogg
| July 6, 2006 6:21 PM
Kender makes the big time:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_07_02_patriotboy_archive.html#115219067321418976
Posted by: Bill from Dover
| July 6, 2006 6:27 PM