Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A sheriff who allowed an evangelical Christian group to come and preach at his deputies during mandatory staff meetings has lost -- again -- in federal court. Two years ago, a federal district court judge ruled against the sheriff; now a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has unanimously upheld that ruling.
Here's some background on the case from Americans United, which filed an amicus brief in the case:
The dispute goes back to 2006, when Clarke arranged for members of the Centurions, a group affiliated with Elmbrook Church, a local evangelical congregation, to address the deputies. Attendance was mandatory for all deputies with the rank of sergeant or above.During one meeting in Spring of 2006, Clarke announced that he would soon make promotions to the rank of captain and distributed a flyer stating that leaders often look for "people of faith" in their inner circles.
The Centurions ended up making 16 presentations in May of 2006. The plaintiffs in the case, a Muslim sheriff's deputy and a Roman Catholic deputy, protested. When their complaints were ignored, they brought an action with their union.
It's incredible to me that they even let this go to court in the first place, much less filed an appeal after losing the first round. This was an easy case.
Politics
Comments
As someone whose job it is to defend often stupid government action, I feel for the poor government lawyers who get stuck defending such obviously losing cases. They generally know better, but no one listens to them, and they end up falling on their swords defending a case they know is bullshit. (I asked some judges once, and they said they could always tell when the lawyer was in that position, and generally went somewhat easier on them than they would on a lawyer who had a choice about taking the case or actually believed his own nonsense.)
Posted by: CJColucci | December 7, 2009 11:23 AM
In what sense did they go easy on them, CJColucci?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 7, 2009 11:27 AM
You don't explain the law to them or dwell on the illogic of their position. You don't berate them for stupid or time-wasting things their client, acting within its rights, forces them to do. You don't iterrupt them stating their position--they're just making a record, believing the position no more than you. It doesn't sound like much, but it's a smooth ride.
Posted by: Adam | December 7, 2009 12:00 PM
I would imagine that "going easy on them" means not taking it out on them later. It is my understanding that pissing off judges is not terribly good for a lawyer's career. Depending how much the judge you are in front of is respected by and communicates with her/his colleagues, it might not just be that particular judge who develops a bias against you.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 7, 2009 12:13 PM
It is my understanding that pissing off judges is not terribly good for a lawyer's career."
AKA, Taitzing the Shark
Posted by: Chilidog | December 7, 2009 2:26 PM
Ya know, it's psychotic attitudes like that which only goes to prove you homos are violent lunatics!
And for the record, I've been persecuted and abused all my life by fags - just for being Christian. I remember when I was just 16 year old, a fag-lovin liberal Judge put me in prison for ATACKED a Gay Pride Parade. Hey, it was only blanks, and you'd think they'd see the funny side, but he was REAL mean about it. He even included 3 prior assault charges, an tried to say it was some sort of hate crime. He called me all sorts of hateful words, and my two boys were crying all thro' the trial. It was shocking! My whole family were in tears, but my daddy said he was real proud of me for showing those fags what for.
I served 2 years for that, and had to be apart from my two sons all that time, and it hurt real bad. It still pains me that I missed so much of their childhood. Now that's TRUE persucution! You fags wouldnt know what persecution was if it walked up, and smashed a brick into ur teeth. I was persecuted because of my faith. Because i'm a Christian. Christians are always a target from God-haters. But we have to stay strong, because we can't let our Lord down and give into all this fag-rights nonsense. God said in the Bible exactly what rights fags have - NONE WHATSOEVER! I still pray everyday that our Laws get changed to the Laws of the Bible, so that we can smite all those who God wants smited, and stone all those God wants stoned. Praise!
Until then my family will always suffer abuse from fags in the street, who know our names and follow us everywhere we go. They throw things at me and call me a psycho, and try to get me to violate my parole. Yes, we live in a small town, and Christians are always a target in that kind of enviroment from God-haters and lunatics. You talk about intolerance, well what you fags are doin to my family is intolerance, and you know it!
Posted by: TRUECRISTIAN | December 7, 2009 2:44 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | December 7, 2009 2:48 PM
Truecristian,
Rules for Poes:
1. Stay on topic.
2. Don't re-use old material.
I know TC posted something almost exactly like this before; does anyone know the thread?
Posted by: DaveL | December 7, 2009 2:54 PM
TRUECHRISTIAN, #6:
I'm almost thinking you're a Poe. I mean, you just admitted that you spent several years in prison because you're a violent bigot. In fact, you sound like you still belong in prison because you seem to still be a dangerous sociopath. I can only hope that you can succeed in keeping your anger issues under control. For the sake of your boys if for nothing else.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 7, 2009 2:55 PM
I'm calling poe on TRUECRISTIAN. Can't tell for sure, but of course being indistinguishable from the genuine article is the mark of an expert poe. If it is a poe, it's worthy of MadtheSwine!
Posted by: Mal Adapted | December 7, 2009 3:09 PM
Meh. No real freako fundie would admit firing shots, even blank ones, at a Pride parade.
2 out of 10, TC. Try harder next time.
Posted by: Rieux | December 7, 2009 4:38 PM
It's not even a good Poe.
Posted by: Abstruseoddity | December 7, 2009 4:40 PM
Uh, huh. Want to bet there'll be a religious discrimination suit when the next captain is selected?
Posted by: JakeR | December 7, 2009 6:48 PM
TC is certainly a poe but he could have future in journalism at New Republic or WND.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 7, 2009 7:18 PM
The cadence of TC's post has "stereotype redneck" written all over it, so to speak. In fact, I involuntarily heard Charlie Daniels' voice while reading it.
Not a Poe. Definitely parody.
Posted by: complex field | December 7, 2009 7:53 PM
I agree with complex field. TRUECRISTIAN is not a Poe. A Poe is when you can't tell whether or not they are kidding.
Posted by: James K | December 8, 2009 3:17 AM
@ Chilidog:
Don't Taitz me, bro!
Posted by: Joey Maloney | December 8, 2009 5:56 AM
DaveL, a quick google using "Christians are always a target in that kind of enviroment" shows up this post and yes TRUECHRISTIAN is far too obvious to count as a Poe.
Posted by: Matty | December 8, 2009 7:46 AM
Yeah, I live in Milwaukee County and Clark is a bit of a nutter, so this doesn't really surprise me.
Posted by: EdgyB | December 8, 2009 12:45 PM