Clinton Appointee Annoyed by Appeal, Orders Pesky Rural Counties Plundered for ACLU Attorney Fees

Authoritarian Atheism is tightening the vice on rural Kentuckians who dared to post the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses, according to this article that ran in the McClatchy newspapers on Wednesday. A federal judge faulted the poverty-stricken southern counties for tenaciously resisting the ACLU in court, thus bringing mountainous legal fees (to be paid to the ACLU's lawyers) upon themselves.

For the Hon. Jennifer Coffman, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Kentucky, prompt capitulation is the only acceptable response to the ACLU. The Clinton appointee may be extra peevish at the uppity Kentuckians' appellate efforts since she was the one who originally ordered the Ten Commandments removed May 5, 2000. Her rulings have uniformly favored the ACLU since that time.

Kentucky counties fined $400,000 for posting Ten Commandments
The Guardian (McClatchy newspapers) - March 18, 2009

Two southern Kentucky counties where officials posted copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses have been ordered by a federal judge to pay more than $400,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union and citizens who successfully challenged the displays. US district judge Jennifer B. Coffman ordered Pulaski and McCreary counties to pay $393,798 in attorneys' fees and $8,133 in expenses to the ACLU of Kentucky and citizens.

Coffman's decision is the latest ruling in a court fight that began a decade ago. The counties don't have to pay immediately because aspects of the case are still being appealed. But if the counties ultimately lose, taxpayers could be on the hook for the bill if insurance doesn't cover it.

McCreary county judge-executive Blaine Phillips said he doesn't think the county's insurance policy would cover its share of the payment. Phillips said McCreary county might seek donations if it has to split the cost of the Ten Commandments fight with Pulaski county. He was reluctant to even mention taxpayer dollars as a possible source for the payment.

"That'll be a hard pill to swallow" if the county has to pay, Phillips said. McCreary county is one of the state's poorest, and is hard-pressed at times to fund police protection and other services.

Phillips said there's been no discussion on how to share the bill with Pulaski county if that becomes necessary. But Mathew Staver, who represents the counties, said he thinks their insurance companies would cover the judgement if the counties someday have to pay.

He said if the counties win the case on appeal, they wouldn't have to pay the ACLU. That is the goal, said Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group.

David A Friedman, lead attorney for the ACLU, agreed that the counties wouldn't have to pay all $400,000 if they win their appeal. However, the ACLU and the citizens who filed the lawsuit would still be entitled to a significant fee award, Friedman said.

The counties argued to Coffman that the fee request from the ACLU was unreasonable. The attorneys spent too much time on some tasks such as legal research, billed for some things they shouldn't have and sought fees that were too high, the counties argued. Coffman disagreed on every point, ruling that the ACLU fee request was reasonable for a complex case that required 1,300 hours of work over 10 years.

She also noted that the counties' own actions ran up the legal bill in the case. The counties started the court battle by posting standalone copies of the Ten Commandments that were "indisputably unconstitutional" at the time, then fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their actions, Coffman said.

"The defendants 'cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent ... in response,'" Coffman wrote, citing an earlier court opinion.

guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Homosexuals and Unbelievers Triumph Over Christians in 9th Circuit Case

The Ninth Circuit struck yet another blow in favor of authoritarian sodomy in the University of California system today, as it ruled (with lightening-like speed) that Hastings Law need not accord recognition or funding to a Christian student group, due to the Christians' discrimination, in membership and selection of officers, on the bases of religion and sexual orientation.

The Christian Legal Society is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, and the case is a good candidate for Supreme Court review due to the multiple cases arising from this issue at universities across the nation. (One of the reasons the Court accepts a case is to establish a single national rule that applies across all judicial circuits and districts.)

National Law Journal staff reporter Pamela A. MacLean wrote the brief report below.

Law school cannot be required to recognize and fund a religious student group that discriminates
by Pamela A. MacLean Staff reporter

March 18, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California Hastings College of the Law cannot be required to recognize and fund a religious student group that discriminates in the selection of members and officers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday.

Just a week after hearing arguments in the case, the 9th Circuit issued a one-paragraph, unpublished order that Hastings' open membership rule prohibiting discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation of members is "viewpoint neutral and reasonable."

The Christian Legal Society made clear after the March 10 argument that it would appeal if it lost at this stage. Christian Legal Society v. Kane, No. 06-15956.

Hastings' attorney, Ethan Schulman of Folger Levin & Kahn in San Francisco, said the issue has arisen repeatedly in test cases at various university campuses across the country. The most recent was Feb. 6 in San Diego. In that case, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns granted summary judgment for San Diego State University against a challenge by Christian student groups.

The CLS case is one of a half-dozen test cases the group has filed in recent years against law schools around the country over similar nondiscrimination pledge requirements. The 9th Circuit decision to side with Hastings may put it in direct conflict with the 7th Circuit.

CLS attorney Timothy J. Tracey, of the Springfield, Va.-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom, argued that the school's denial of official recognition deprives it of some funding, access to recruit students at official events and access to the school Web site and other publications. The school does provide meeting space.

The 9th Circuit panel found that Hastings' rule requiring open voting membership in all student groups, even if members disagree with the mission of the group, is permitted under the 9th Circuit's decision in Truth v. Kent School Dist., 542 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2008), which currently has an application for U.S. Supreme Court review pending.

Obama Consolidates Power, Disrupts Supply Trains of Potential Rivals

A post in today's Comparing Obama and JFK blog reports on the president's disturbing decisions to consolidate personal power and create insatiable new entitlement constituencies at the price of transforming America's robust, independent private philanthropy sector into gaunt mendicants. Here is an excerpt.

Obama consolidates power, reduces privately-funded philanthropy to his discipline

No danger of confusing President Obama with JFK here. He is not only increasing taxes robustly, but cutting the deductions allowed for charitable contributions. This is not mere revenue generation, but consolidation of power in the national government at the expense of private philanthropy - especially churches and parachurch organizations - which compels further dependency on government officials, and potentially yields a large, loyal patronage constituency where once potential rivals lurked.

Princeton professor Robert George has observed that socialism is not merely antithetical to individualism, but it is an attack on "mediating civic institutions," such as the family and the church. When collectivists' ambitions ambitions approach the totalitarian, there's not enough room on this planet for government and church and family. In the long run, such totalitarians cannot tolerate independent families or churches, and come to view them as incubators for resistance.

American Leftists couldn't openly oppress church and family a generation ago, but times have changed. They are now in full control of the media (see yesterday's post about "media malpractice"), so there is no watchdog to hold them accountable. Our civic literacy has been suppressed (see yesterday's post for the URL to filmmaker John Ziegler's exit interviews of 2008 voters) enough that electoral accountability is unlikely. Triumphal Leftists are casting off restraint now as the Leftist regime settles in.

As an example, legislators in Connecticut recently proposed a bill to remove Catholic Church property from the custody of its bishops, and to require that it be held in trust by laymen. This is transparently an act of retaliation against the church because it dares to oppose homosexual marriage. The Latter Day Saints are incurring similar intimidation in California, for the same reason.

Already Catholic Charities has been driven out of the child adoption business in Massachusetts by homosexualists. If President Obama and his allies are not restrained, there will be soon be no refuge for Christian philanthropy - or Christian conscience - in the U.S.