Debra Law wrote:If you agree with judicial decisions, then the judges are right; if you disagree with judicial decisions, then the judges are wrong. You make no effort to support any of your assertions by reference to actual facts or actual law.
Foxfyre wrote:So sorry I disappoint you, Debra. I am not an attorney and no doubt look at these things from a different perspective than you do. A sense of right and wrong, irregardless of legal schmeegle, comes to mind. But enlighten me. If you disagree with a judicial decision, then the judge is right? That's really amazing.
You conclusively stated, "In all due respect, a symbol depicting the role religion has had in the history of an area is not an endorsement of religion."
You stated a conclusion of law and proclaimed if a judge disagreed with your conclusion of law, the judge was wrong.
Despite your conclusive legal assertions with respect to the Establishment Clause, you claim ignorance of the law but somehow claim superior ability over law-trained judges to discern the difference between constitutional right and wrong. Is your self-proclaimed superior ability bestowed upon you by God or is it a demonstration of arrogance?
If I disagree with a judicial decision, I refer to legal precedents to support the basis for my disagreement. You do not. Therefore, I don't see how the difference between us is a source of amazement for you.
Debra_Law wrote:Nevertheless, your concern for the Village's ostensible financial hardship to defend its seal or logo in its present form is misplaced. The WorldNetDaily reports: "The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-religious-liberty organization, has agreed to represent the municipality." It seems odd that a pro-religious organization would be interested in defending an allegedly religious-neutral city seal or logo that merely depicts the regional history.
Foxfyre wrote:Well hallelujah. I had not heard that. But thank goodness somebody has the cojones to help the little guy fight back on this nonsense. It doesn't seem odd to me that a pro-religious organization would have an interest in seeing that all religious cultural and historical heritage is not stripped from every public venue in the country which seems to be the intent of some. Some of us actually think it would be a grave loss for the public, regardless of their religious beliefs, to be denied the great religious art--to wit Da Vinci, Michaelangeolo, et al--and all the great religious music from the classical period forward, or all the wonderful old church buildings currently on historical registers and receiving public funding to preserve them.
It takes a lot of unrealistic manipulation to turn the government into the "little guy" and attorneys who represent civil rights clients into the "oppressors." You sure know how to spin a woeful tale of illusory deprivations. When you catch a flight back to reality, let us know.
Debra-Law wrote:The Constitution becomes a meaningless piece of paper if the government may violate individual civil rights protected by the Constitution with impunity. Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to ameliorate the disparity of power between an offending government body and the victim of a civil rights violation. By federal law, Congress provided both a financial incentive for attorneys to represent persons in the vindication of their civil rights and a financial disincentive for government bodies to violate civil rights.
Foxfyre wrote:Again tell me what civil rights are being violated by a historical county seal? What personal risk is involved? What property is being violated or put at risk? Who is unable to pursue happiness or earn a living or is incurring any other loss due to an artistic rendition of the religious history of the area? Who is being required to genuflect when a county truck rolls by or who is being required or rewarded to believe anything other than what they already believe?
You've already been told that any individual who comes into direct contract to a government endorsement of religion may state an injury in fact under the Establishment Clause. Why don't you look up the law. Rather than argue your legal positions from a position of ignorance or arrogance, why don't you educate yourself.
If, according to you, it hurts NOBODY to have a religious symbol on a official government seal, then it hurts NOBODY to have it removed. I can't see where your property, livelihood, or pursuit of happiness is at risk if the government is not allowed to endorse religion.
Debra Law wrote:If the Village, a government entity, intends to defend its official seal against a constitutional challenge, then the Village is well aware that a potential legal loss on the issue would subject the Village to financial liability for the opposing party's attorney fees. It appears that the Village has determined to assume the financial risk of losing in court.
Foxfyre wrote:And if there is any justice in the world, the Village will prevail. The injustice is that the Village has to assume a financial risk to defend its county seal. Once the suit is filed, the City loses even if it capitulates because it is no small cost to change the seal wherever it appears. If the ACLU had to pay the Village its costs if the Village prevailed, it would even things up at least some. But nevertheless, it is an unnecessary and frivolous suit and should never be allowed to stand.
Please substantiate your legal conclusions with citations to legal precedent.