DOES THE ACLU DO MORE GOOD OR MORE HARM?

Could you sign this petition being circulated by CourtZero?

[Recitals containing unsupported conclusions snipped] . . . .

THEREFORE, the People of the United States call upon their Congress to amend USC section 1988 so that hostile special interest groups such as the ACLU can no longer be granted taxpayer money to attack Americans and their institutions.

We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases. We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have.

§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(b) Attorney’s fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

Foxfyre wrote:

Could you sign this petition being circulated by CourtZero?

Absolutely not. The petition is prefaced by recitals that contain unsupported conclusions. It plays to emotion rather than to actual facts or reason. The petition asks Congress to amend a federal statute in an unconstitutional manner in violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment:

Quote:

[Recitals containing unsupported conclusions snipped] . . . .

THEREFORE, the People of the United States call upon their Congress to amend USC section 1988 so that hostile special interest groups such as the ACLU can no longer be granted taxpayer money to attack Americans and their institutions.

We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases. We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have.

Before rushing to amend the provision of the statute that provides for the payment of attoreny fees, it would help to actually read 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) in its entirety and know what you are seeking to amend:

Quote:

§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(b) Attorney's fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

In Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, the PLAINTIFF (Blackhawk) sued the state and the state game commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a violation of his civil rights. The state statute at issue required the keepers of wild or exotic animals to pay a yearly permit fee (ranging from $25 to $300 per year) but allowed exemptions to the permit fee requirement for the keeping of animals for some secular purposes. Blackhawk kept two bears for religious purposes and was denied a waiver from paying the yearly fee. When Blackhawk failed to pay the permit fee, he was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to pay a substantial fine (a $178,400 fine, which was later reduced to $6,442).

Judge Alito, (the current nominee to sit on the United States Supreme Court), wrote the Court of Appeal's majority opinion that upheld a district court order that permanently enjoined the Game Commission from enforcing a permit fee provision of the state Game and Wildlife Code against Blackhawk on the ground that the Commission's waiver policy violated Blackhawk's right to the free exercise of religion. Accordingly, Blackhawk PREVAILED on his civil rights claim and was entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to request payment of his attorney fees.

For someone in Blackhawk's position--for a person who finds it a financial hardship to pay a yearly permit fee in the range of $25 to $300 per year or face stiff criminal penalities if he fails to pay the yearly permit fee--it is impossible to pay for the extensive services of competent counsel to vindicate his right to the free exercise of religion against the vast resources of the government. Congress designed 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to somewhat alleviate the disparity of power between an ordinary individual seeking to vindicate his/her civil rights and an otherwise all-powerful government. The government limits the payment of attorney fees to only those plaintiffs who PREVAIL on their meritorious claims.

Accordingly, an attorney (including ACLU attorneys) must be careful to evaluate a potential civil rights client's case and determine whether or not it has merit. No one desires to spend enormous amounts of time (compensated or otherwise) on cases that have little chance of success. The rules of civil procedure weed out frivolous cases from the onset and subject attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits to severe sanctions. Additionally, attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits are subject to professional discipline and the possible loss of their licenses to practice law. Our judicial system has sufficient safeguards to rid itself of frivolous lawsuits without singling out plaintiffs (like Blackhawk who asserted a violation of his civil rights under the Establishment Clause) for differential and unconstitutional discriminatory treatment.

Your disapproval of the ACLU or other attorneys who help plaintiffs vindicate their civil rights is irrelevant. ACLU attorneys simply don't get paid under Section 1988 unless their civil rights client presents a valid claim and prevails on the merits. A civil rights plaintiff who states a valid claim under the establishment clause and prevails has just as much right to compensation for his/her attorneys as other plaintiffs who state valid civil rights claims and prevail pursuant to other constitutional clauses. Congressional discrimination against establishment clause plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 would violate the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The petition is ridiculous; it recites unsupported conclusions; it appeals to emotion while it ignores actual facts and reason; it caters to mindless sheeple; and asks Congress to amend a statute to unconstitutionally discriminate against establishment clause plaintiffs.

No. I could not sign the petition unless I was a complete moron.

Unfortubately, Fox, it appears that denying payments to the ACLU would end up denying payments to everyone. Then you not only eliminate the so-called profit motive, but also the non-profit motive.

And don't forget that the SCOTUS upheld the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, so trying to derive profits from these suits is a chancy business.

So the ACLU collected half a million in attorney's fees on that one case.

Legal work is expensive.

Does Foxfyre have any statisitics as to how much the other side spent on lawyers fighting the ACLU?

Because unless we know that, we can't judge if that award was exorbitant, can we?

Any amount a small village has to spend defending a historical seal is too much so far as I am concerned.

Do you honestly think the ACLU would be going after suits like that if it wasn't profitable to do so?

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Could you sign this petition being circulated by CourtZero?

Absolutely not. The petition is prefaced by recitals that contain unsupported conclusions. It plays to emotion rather than to actual facts or reason. The petition asks Congress to amend a federal statute in an unconstitutional manner in violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment:

Quote:

[Recitals containing unsupported conclusions snipped] . . . .

THEREFORE, the People of the United States call upon their Congress to amend USC section 1988 so that hostile special interest groups such as the ACLU can no longer be granted taxpayer money to attack Americans and their institutions.

We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases. We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have.

Before rushing to amend the provision of the statute that provides for the payment of attoreny fees, it would help to actually read 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) in its entirety and know what you are seeking to amend:

Quote:

§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(b) Attorney’s fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

In Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, the PLAINTIFF (Blackhawk) sued the state and the state game commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a violation of his civil rights. The state statute at issue required the keepers of wild or exotic animals to pay a yearly permit fee (ranging from $25 to $300 per year) but allowed exemptions to the permit fee requirement for the keeping of animals for some secular purposes. Blackhawk kept two bears for religious purposes and was denied a waiver from paying the yearly fee. When Blackhawk failed to pay the permit fee, he was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to pay a substantial fine (a $178,400 fine, which was later reduced to $6,442).

Judge Alito, (the current nominee to sit on the United States Supreme Court), wrote the Court of Appeal's majority opinion that upheld a district court order that permanently enjoined the Game Commission from enforcing a permit fee provision of the state Game and Wildlife Code against Blackhawk on the ground that the Commission's waiver policy violated Blackhawk's right to the free exercise of religion. Accordingly, Blackhawk PREVAILED on his civil rights claim and was entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to request payment of his attorney fees.

For someone in Blackhawk's position--for a person who finds it a financial hardship to pay a yearly permit fee in the range of $25 to $300 per year or face stiff criminal penalities if he fails to pay the yearly permit fee--it is impossible to pay for the extensive services of competent counsel to vindicate his right to the free exercise of religion against the vast resources of the government. Congress designed 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to somewhat alleviate the disparity of power between an ordinary individual seeking to vindicate his/her civil rights and an otherwise all-powerful government. The government limits the payment of attorney fees to only those plaintiffs who PREVAIL on their meritorious claims.

Accordingly, an attorney (including ACLU attorneys) must be careful to evaluate a potential civil rights client's case and determine whether or not it has merit. No one desires to spend enormous amounts of time (compensated or otherwise) on cases that have little chance of success. The rules of civil procedure weed out frivolous cases from the onset and subject attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits to severe sanctions. Additionally, attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits are subject to professional discipline and the possible loss of their licenses to practice law. Our judicial system has sufficient safeguards to rid itself of frivolous lawsuits without singling out plaintiffs (like Blackhawk who asserted a violation of his civil rights under the Establishment Clause) for differential and unconstitutional discriminatory treatment.

Your disapproval of the ACLU or other attorneys who help plaintiffs vindicate their civil rights is irrelevant. ACLU attorneys simply don't get paid under Section 1988 unless their civil rights client presents a valid claim and prevails on the merits. A civil rights plaintiff who states a valid claim under the establishment clause and prevails has just as much right to compensation for his/her attorneys as other plaintiffs who state valid civil rights claims and prevail pursuant to other constitutional clauses. Congressional discrimination against establishment clause plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 would violate the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The petition is ridiculous; it recites unsupported conclusions; it appeals to emotion while it ignores actual facts and reason; it caters to mindless sheeple; and asks Congress to amend a statute to unconstitutionally discriminate against establishment clause plaintiffs.

No. I could not sign the petition unless I was a complete moron.

Point well taken. I didn't know about the petition until recently when somebody posted it on another site having a debate similar to this one. After looking at some of the supporting data for it though, I don't think the petitioners had in mind a case such as you cited in which a plaintiff had a clearcut grievance and was incurring a hardship. What they seem to be objecting to is the ACLU going around with a proverbial magnifying glass hunting for any religious symbol of object d' art to object to.

As pointed out in the following article, in all other cases, a Plaintiff has to show damages--his person, property, opportunities, livelihood, or his constitutionally protect rights, etc. are in some way violated. But in these establishment clause suits, all that is required is for somebody to be 'offended' or the ACLU interprets something to be a violation of the establishment clause. No damages or deprivation of any kind have to be shown. It is this for which First Amendment rights groups are seeking a remedy. They think if the profit motive was removed, the ACLU would be less inclined to go looking for such suits to file.

LAW OF THE LAND
Petition: Take ACLU off taxpayer dole
Legal group awarded 1/2 million tax dollars for ridding courthouse of 10 Commandments
Posted: November 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A new online petition asks Congress to change a specific civil-rights statute in hopes of preventing the American Civil Liberties Union from collecting attorney fees from taxpayers of local governments the organization takes to court.

The effort – spearheaded by Craig McCarthy of CourtZero.org, a site dedicated to stemming judicial activism – seeks to change 42 U.S.C., Section 1988, of the United States Code. The statute now allows judges to award attorney fees to plaintiffs in civil-rights cases brought against local governments, thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook and oftentimes funneling public money to the ACLU. McCarthy wants the law changed so cases involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would not apply. . . .

[snip]

Stop ACLU before going to court

Attorney Mathew Staver says he understands McCarthy's point but believes there's a better way to go about it. Staver is president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit religious-liberties law firm.

"What Congress ought to do is pass a statute that cuts back the standing of the ability to bring Establishment Clause claims," Staver said, which would limit who could file such a suit.

He says currently anyone who is "offended" by what they see, a Ten Commandments display, for example, can bring suit.

"You can't do that in any other area of litigation," Staver said. "You've got to have a personal, direct injury. …

[snip]

Instead, he said, "you ought to stop them before they can get to the courtroom."

[snip]

As pointed out in the following article, in all other cases, a Plaintiff has to show damages--his person, property, opportunities, livelihood, or his constitutionally protect rights, etc. are in some way violated. But in these establishment clause suits, all that is required is for somebody to be 'offended' or the ACLU interprets something to be a violation of the establishment clause.

ACLU attorneys simply don't get paid under Section 1988 unless their civil rights client presents a valid claim and prevails on the merits.

Foxfyre wrote:

As pointed out in the following article, in all other cases, a Plaintiff has to show damages--his person, property, opportunities, livelihood, or his constitutionally protect rights, etc. are in some way violated. But in these establishment clause suits, all that is required is for somebody to be 'offended' or the ACLU interprets something to be a violation of the establishment clause.

If Debra's points are well-taken, as you say they are, you may want to recall what she said here (emphasis mine):

Debra Law wrote:

ACLU attorneys simply don't get paid under Section 1988 unless their civil rights client presents a valid claim and prevails on the merits.

So contrary to what you say, it isn't enough for somebody to be offended or the ACLU to interpret something as violating the establishment clause. In both cases, a court (and then perhaps an appeals court ... and then perhaps a supreme court) has to decide that their suit prevails before the ACLU collects money. If the court decides the client's rights weren't violated, the ACLU doesn't collect. If the case ends in a settlement (not sure how often that happens in civil rights cases) the ACLU doesn't collect. And even if the ACLU did make a profit on those cases, so what? There is nothing wrong with making a profit if you make it by helping people assert their fundamental rights -- including the freedoms of speech and religion. Thomas Sowell, one of your favorite columnists, frequently points out how foolish many liberals are to dismiss the profit motive as immoral. He is right.