I thought the ACLU

[evmori]

OGE was correct in asking this thread to be spun off!

 

I thought the ACLU could only sue if they took a case? Is that a fact?

[shortridge]

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the ACLU generally represents people who have been affected by a given situation. A person suing has to have legal standing to do so. Someone in Kentucky can't sue a local government in Wyoming just because they don't like a law.

[evmori]

That's what I thought also shortridge, that's why this statement

 

I wish those who had bent public schools to their will of religious discrimination had voluntarily seen that public schools can't possibly charter private clubs that exclude atheists and had dropped them, instead of requiring the ACLU to threaten to sue public schools that violated the civil rights of their own students.

 

specifically the part after the last comma befuddled me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The ACLU threatened to sue:

http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/bsaletter.pdf

"[rechartering units] would avoid the need for further litigation in Illinois regarding direct government sponsorship of Scouting"

 

Not only would an excluded atheist make a suitable litigant, but it probably could have been pursued like the WInkler case, which I think was brought on the behalf of Illinois/Chicago taxpayers against the Chicago school board.

[Beavah]

but it probably could have been pursued like the WInkler case, which I think was brought on the behalf of Illinois/Chicago taxpayers against the Chicago school board.

 

Da trend in court rulings increasingly is to dismiss such cases for lack of standing. Rightly so, IMO. Taxpayers have recourse through da ballot box, they do not have standing to raise a civil complaint solely on the basis of being taxpayers.

 

Beavah

 

[xlpanel]

It seems that the ACLU would have a very firm and easily winnable case here.

 

A goverment giving tax dollars out to an institute that discriminates on grounds or religion and gender.

 

If you were a homo and didn't want your dollars going to the BSA through the goverment, you would have very good grounds. Why should your tax dollars fund a private institution that won't ever include you?

[OldGreyEagle]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyeagle)

[Lisabob]

xlpanel, the law does not work quite as simply as that. There may indeed be a case here - I don't know all the details of the situation Merlyn cites - but Beavah is correct that "taxpayer status" has often been considered to be too low a bar to give a person standing in court.

 

Also, referring to someone as "a homo" is usually considered to be derogatory in most circles. I am supposing your intent was not to be rude and that you simply were unaware.

[xlpanel]

"On June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that taxpayers have "standing to sue" when Congress spends money in a way that violates the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. "

 

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4972_33.htm

 

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

 

I believe that answers the question of the thread.

 

TYVM

[evmori]

Yer all missing my point. The ACLU just can't decide to sue! Some one has to come to them and request them to take a case. Right????

[OldGreyEagle]

I beleive you are right Ed, the ACLU is sorta like a Legal Aid Society, as long as you fall in the scope of their mission. And of course, their mission is to protect the Civil Liberties of all Americans.

 

Lets say you think a publicly funded entity is denying you your Civil Rights. You could call the closest chapter of the ACLU, give them your story and see if they would represent you in the matter. It would be you bringing the case, but the ACLU would be doing the work.

 

it may also be interesting that as far as I can tell, the ACLU has never decided a case, that is the purvey of the Bench. All the ACLU can do is represent a citizen brining forth a suit and force a decision, but the ACLU does not decide anything, its judge that has the final say so(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Lisabob]

Did you READ that article? You know, the one where the Anti-defamation league is extremely disappointed because they feel that this ruling limits people's rights to sue the gov't using taxpayer status as their basis for claiming standing?

 

This was a set back, not a victory, for the notion that taxpayer status automatically equates to standing.

 

Additionally, when you take quotes out of an article and leave out words like "only" you are changing the meaning of the quoted material. This is considered to be unethical as you are now misrepresenting the point made by the original author.

 

For instance, the full quote is:

"Update: On June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that taxpayers have "standing to sue" ONLY when Congress spends money in a way that violates the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. ADL called the decision, 'a setback to religious liberty in America.' "

 

(emphasis added)

 

See how that "only" changes the meaning of what you quoted? Intellectual honesty matters when you're trying to put forth an argument.

 

Look more carefully at the actual majority & concurring opinions. Alito wrote that there are only very limited instances where taxpayer status is sufficient for standing. Based on previous decisions, Alito said standing can only be considered when people feel the religious freedoms in the 1st amend. are being violated AND there is a link to a specific congressional expenditure (which was not the case here). In his concurring opinion, Scalia went further and said even that wouldn't be enough to constitute standing, in his view.

 

The long and short of it is that the 5 member majority (Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas) ruled that the group that brought the suit here had NO STANDING. Bad example for you to use, mate.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[GoldWinger]

"The ACLU just can't decide to sue! Some one has to come to them and request them to take a case. Right????"

 

I believe that they look for people with "standing" and then try to make their "constitutional points."

[GoldWinger]

"that is the purvey of the Bench."

 

That's what they supply? Maybe you mean "perview"?

[Beavah]

The ACLU just can't decide to sue! Some one has to come to them and request them to take a case. Right????

 

Yah, sorry evmori. Didn't mean to ignore your original question.

 

No, the ACLU can indeed decide to sue on its own if it believes it has standing in the case to do so. There have been a number of important cases where da ACLU has been lead plaintiff.

 

In other cases as GW points out, if da ACLU has an interest in pursuin' a case, they will go out and recruit a client to be plaintiff. Essentially they'll go look for a sympathetic person who has been affected by the law, and provide free representation to pursue a case in their name.

 

In still other cases, a client will approach them with a case of interest.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)