ACLU to BSA: Heads We Win - Tails You Lose

[tortdog]

Someone earlier made the point that the ACLU is getting rich off its lawsuits. I found that somewhat hard to believe, personally knowing a few ACLU attorneys - none of whom are rich. However, I now see this person's point. The ACLU has strategically begun to attack the government to extract millions of dollars by litigating against its historically close relationship with the BSA.

 

Under the law, if the ACLU sues the United States for violation of civil rights and it wins, the United States must pay the attorney fees of the ACLU. Big bucks.

 

If the United States wins, then the court CANNOT award attorney fees to the government, so the ACLU is out little, while the government had to spend $$$ to defend its relationship with the BSA. Why does the ACLU win? It's attorneys work for peanuts, and other attorneys volunteer their time. If the ACLU wins, the ACLU charges full price for that attorney time and the taxpayer foots the bill. If the ACLU loses, the ACLU attorneys either write the bill off (no cost to the ACLU) or get paid their peanuts.

 

Either way, the taxpayer loses. Do you think the legislation should be changed to make it equal - such that the loser pays for the other side's attorney fees even if it is the government? This would make the ACLU consider twice before filing lawsuits - since it could be socked with a huge bill for the government's attorneys each time the ACLU loses a lawsuit (which it frequently does).

 

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl42/ch21/subchI/sec1988.html(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[OldGreyEagle]

I think the best approach would be to have governmental units not Charter BSA units so the ACLU would have nothing to sue governmental units over, perhaps, cut off os this revenue, the ACLU would wither or die.

[tortdog]

That's not good enough for the ACLU. It sues the government for continuing its historical relationship with the BSA, such as allowing the BSA to use its property for the National Jamboree.

 

Also, I have a feeling that the law has been construed to allow the ACLU to force state/city governments to pay ACLU legal fees for "discrimination" claims, while those governments to not receive attorney fees from the ACLU when the government wins. Supposedly this is why LA backed away from defending its city seal against the ACLU. Options were:

 

#1 Defend the historical seal that includes a cross:

 

Win and keep the seal but out $$$ in government attorney fees

 

Lose and lose the seal but out $$$ in government attorney fees AND $$$ in ACLU attorney fees

 

#2 Cave to the ACLU

 

Lose the seal but no attorney fees

[Hunt]

The ACLU doesn't sue the government to get money--it sues the government because that's who you sue when the government is trampling on civil rights. If people suing the government had to pay the government's legal costs if they lost, then essentially nobody (except giant corporations, maybe) could afford to risk suing the government, and the government could do whatever it wants. The ability to sue the government and have the case decided by an independent judiciary is one of the most important bulwarks of freedom we have in this country. The risk that the government will have to defend some meritless lawsuits and absorb the cost is well worth it.

If you don't like what the ACLU is doing, go support some other group with opposite ideas. That group may want to sue the government about something, too.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Just seems hard to believe that the ACLU would construct a strategy against the government's support of BSA just to gain income. There would seem to be plenty of easier ways for a group of lawyers to make money.

 

Here's a question for you legal eagles that maybe should be spun off as a separate thread if there's enough interest.

 

The BSA is allowed to discriminate against gays and atheists because the Supreme Court agreed with the argument that they are a private club and therefore have the right to establish their own membership requirements. How far does that go? Could the BSA say, for example, no people of color allowed? No Protestants? I guess the question is, is there a line somewhere that BSA or any other private club can't cross?

 

 

[tortdog]

First, fighting the BSA helps the ACLU coffers because it panders to its supporters, AND they get free bucks in the way of legal fees. While it's true that there is merit to awarding a winning plaintiff for suing the government for infringement of civil rights, why shouldn't the People (the taxpayers) be entitled to attorney fees from the ACLU when the ACLU is wrong?

 

If it's hard to believe, let's see the ACLU return the taxpayer's money.

 

The ACLU is the one suing. The ACLU is costing both sides the attorney fees. When the ACLU makes a mistake, it just files another lawsuit and starts over. Meanwhile, the government has to pay its own attorney fees even on the bogus lawsuits of the ACLU. That's MY money the ACLU is wasting and I'm wondering why the ACLU shouldn't reimburse me.

 

>Could the BSA say, for example, no people of color allowed? No Protestants? I guess the question is, is there a line somewhere that BSA or any other private club can't cross?

 

Until a private group gets to a quasi-public status, it can discriminate for any reason it wants under the free association right. It can discriminate because it doesn't like the brand of your deoderant, your hair color, your skin color, etc. That makes sense because otherwise the state can force private citizens to meet with people who do not share their values/desires, etc. The people are not tools of the state, it's the other way around.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The BSA won the right to discriminate in any way they like. They can discriminate on the basis of religion, and not even racial discrimination is as well covered as religion, as racial discrimination is covered by statutory law, but religious discrimination (while usually included in legislation involving racial discrimination) also involves the constitution if the government is a party.

[gavvin]

Prairie_Scouter said: "The BSA is allowed to discriminate against gays and atheists because the Supreme Court agreed with the argument that they are a private club and therefore have the right to establish their own membership requirements. How far does that go? Could the BSA say, for example, no people of color allowed? No Protestants? I guess the question is, is there a line somewhere that BSA or any other private club can't cross?"

 

As far as I know (not a legal scholar by any means) private organizations may set any limitations on membership that they want to. The real limit however seems to be public opinion. Augusta National Golf Club experienced this about 2 years ago. They deny membership to women and Martha Burke, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, sought to change the policy (by staging protests and such). As a result of the negative PR, corporate sponsers of the Masters last year were very cautious about advertising thier involvement and some ceased sponsering the event completely.

 

If the policy was even more controversial, such as excluding all but white, male protestants, public outrage would have probably caused ALL corporate sponsers to withdraw from the event, effectively killing it. Any organization that adopts such policies can count on public opinion barring it from ever gaining national prominance as anything other than something to alternately revile and laugh at (such as the Ku Klux Klan).

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

(gavvin got his post in first and we have very similar examples, but I assure you, my post was written without seeing gavin's)

 

Prairie_Scouter,

 

The KKK is "allowed" to exist, The American Nazi party is allowed to "exist" for that matter Nambla is "allowed" to exist and Augusta National is allowed to not have females as members. So when you ask if there is a line that private organizations can't cross, I have to say from the empirical data, no, there isn't a line that private organizations can't cross. There may be exceptions and I can't wait to see what they are.

 

You mention that "line", which I take is another way of saying what is acceptable in todays' society. The question is do the organizations care? Both the KKK and the American Nazi party could probably pick up quite a few new members if they backed off some of their key beliefs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

Now, the BSA says they are a private organization so they get to make up their own membership requirements. How we are preceived by the public doesnt matter if keeping to the core beliefs is more important than our image. Then one may ask our image to who? After all, for all those they say BSA values are outmoded, there are plenty who say you guys are right on and dont change. So, who should the BSA be appealing to? Familiy units with youth for our programs or to a rather vocal minority that wants us to change? Its an interesting ethical controversy, aint it?

 

If the BSA is to change, and all organizations change over time, I want it to come from within. We will change when we want, and not because somebody says you have to. Weird thing about that, I am not sure I wouldnt be opposed to changing the membership requirements, but only if the BSA decides to do it, not because somebody outside the organization wants us to. I guess the greater question is, if you dont like the BSA the way it is (no, I am not going to say start another group) what are you doing to change it. Are you working on getting on Council, Regional, National level Committees, what are you doing that will aide the change? Posting here is fun and at times funny and other times miserable, but hardly constitutes a grass roots effort to change the BSA.

 

(BTW, there is no attempt to compare the BSA with any organization mentioned, they are are mentioned for purposes of illustration only)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[evmori]

Once again, Merlyn can't read. The Constitution states the the government can't establish a religion. Now Merlyn thinks by public schools & government entities chartering BSA units that is establishing a religion. He also thinks that this is tantamount to endorsing discrimination. Wrong on both counts. By not allowing public schools & government entities to charter BSA units IS discrimination & is in violation of the Constitution.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Tort,

 

Thanks for the reply on the "line" question. I wasn't sure exactly how that works. Interesting.

 

Regards legal costs, I see your point, and in the bigger picture, think that a lot of frivolous lawsuits could be eliminated by forcing the loser to pay the legal fees of the winner. But, I wonder, wouldn't that effectively eliminate the "little guy" going after a much bigger player? Even if you believe fervently in your cause, you never know what a jury is going to do, and a small player could be wiped out. Even now, large corporations will defend against smaller players by overwhelming their resources. Getting too OT, probably, but just a thought.

 

Gavvin,

Actually I was thinking about Augusta when I was writing my question, and agree that many times it's public opinion rather than law that will force an organization to change its policies.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Once again Ed doesn't know what he's talking about; the constitution forbids the "establishment of religion", not "the establishment of A religion". Read Torcaso v. Watkins.

[evmori]

And public schools & government entities chartering BSA units in no way constitutes establishing a religion. Now if these public schools & government entities stated "You must be a Muslim to be a BSA member in the unit we charter" then you have a case. Since they don't your point is moot.

 

Have a nice day!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, you can't learn.

 

There's no legal distinction between a school requiring you to be a Muslim or requiring you to believe in at least one god. Both are religious requirements that government entities like public schools can't enforce.

[jr56]

Even if a public school charters a BSA unit, none of the students are in any way obligated to join it. It is just another activity being offered. If the school offers football as an extracuricural activity, and physical fitness offends me, should I file a lawsuit to have football banned?

It all boils down to the great myth that you can somehow please all the people all the time. You can't. A minority group of atheists exist in this country, they are free to do so under the laws of this country. Does this mean that everybody else has to give up worshiping God if they so choose?

Years ago the city of New York wanted to install permanent portable toilets in parks. But there is a city ordiance that states that all public buildings must be handicapped accesible, and there was no way they could design them that way. So, because 0.5% of the population cant' use these buildings, 99.5% of the population is denied the right to go to the bathroom.

Merlyn is polite in his posts, but I sometimes feel his prescence her is like going on a Jewish website and spouting anti-semetic rhetoric. I really don't think he is going to accomplish much except rile up a bunch of people.