After stalling earlier this year, proponents of HR 2679, the bill that would eliminate fee shifting in establishment clause cases, have managed to get it out of the judiciary committee and on to the full House. I like this take on it from one of the diarists at DailyKos:
So - to take a real example [ link directly below to "Jews On First" who have the best coverage of the case in question ] - if you're a Jewish family living in Southern Delaware and you complain about the rather blatant and exclusionary promotion of Christianity in the local public school and you and your family are subsequently harassed and your children called "Christ killers", subject to death threats, and eventually hounded out of town ( and along the way you have to sell your house of 18 years under duress ), the point of the law is to make it harder for you to seek some sort of legal redress.
So, if H.R. 2679 ( ironically titled "the Public Expression of Religion Act" ) passes the US House and Senate, that family hounded out of its home in Southern Delaware would be hard pressed to scratch up the money to take the school board - that was defending (and even condoning) the "Christianizing" of local schools - to court. It would be financially prohibitive.
I suspect the House will, as usual, pass a ridiculous bill that the Senate will reject. There appears to be no legislation too stupid for the House to pass.
- Log in to post comments
So, I'm curious if such a law would be constitutional. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that having a constitutionally guaranteed right is useless without having the means to defend it.
The law that it changes is statutory, not constitutional. There is no constitutional requirement for fee shifting, even indirectly. But it's still a terrible idea.
The Republican bozos in the House will pass anything if he leadership wants it, especially if represents red meat to the far right.
So, how much do you want to bet even if it passes, it'll get repealed the moment it gets used AGAINST a christian?
Some of these politicians don't get the idea that laws can be a double edged sword, and the people that they are writing them for won't always be the beneficiaries.
Ed,
Thanks for shining a spotlight on what I think is a crucial battle to pick. There are two resources to spread the word to others and contact your representatives I would like to share, if you don't mind:
If anyone is interested, HERE is Americans United's pre-filled form that anyone can use to send to their representatives opposing this bill, which automatically sends (based on the ZIP you enter) to the correct reps from your area.
Also, for those Facebookers out there, there now exists a Facebook group on this legislation issue.
Thanks!
God, the story above makes me want to start a group called JAWER, Jews Against WASPy Evangelical Retards.
I've seen you comment several times that some bill or the other will pass the House and get struck down in the Senate. Is there a difference in kind between the two bodies, or is the less-lunatic-Senate a purely empirical observation?
- JS
JS:
The Senate, for several reasons including length of term and the fact that Senators get elected by whole states rather than by smaller districts, tends to have fewer total idiots -- though Oklahoma, with Inhofe and Coburn, is a definite exception. Also, because of the filibuster rule, a controversial proposition usually needs 60 votes to pass rather than a simple majority of 51.
Ah, thanks for the info.
- JS
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Thanks for posting that. I just sent a bunch of letters. (It's very convenient.) Although in this case I'm fairly certain at least 2 of the 3 Congress members (Russ Fewingold and Tammy Baldwin) will vote agaisnt it. Won't hurt.