Comments on: Ending Corporate Welfare http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:25:23 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: L. Fafarman http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-54179 L. Fafarman Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:58:39 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/#comment-54179 At the outset, I want to say that Ed Brayton is a lousy hypocrite who pretends to be open-minded but has permanently banned me from his blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, because he disagreed with me. Now in regard to HR 2679, the bill that would bar attorney fee awards in establishment clause cases: Ed is only concerned with the chilling effect that HR 2679 would have on would-be plaintiffs and is not at all concerned about the chilling effect that the threats of exorbitant attorney fee awards have on government actions that the courts might rule to be constitutional. Ed also tries to justify these exorbitant attorney fee awards by pointing out that the plaintiffs or their attorneys get paid only if they win, but the governments do not get paid when they win. I support HR 2679, but I think that it would be better to just have a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause cases and free exercise clause cases. My reasons are as follows: (1) A cap on fee awards should be able to cover the attorney fees for the worst violations. (2) Public officials often find themselves between a rock and a hard place in regard to public expressions of religion, e.g., where there is a question of whether to allow a private individual or organization to express religion in a public place, there is a threat of a free exercise lawsuit if such expression is censored and a threat of an establishment clause lawsuit if such expression is allowed. With just a ban on fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits, public officials would rather avoid a free exercise lawsuit than avoid an establishment clause lawsuit and hence would tend to lean too far towards protecting free exercise at the expense of church-state separation. Having a cap on fee awards for both establishment clause and free exercise clause lawsuits would keep the playing field level. (3) I think that this fee cap would have a much better chance of passing than an outright ban on fee awards in establishment clause cases. However, I still feel that HR 2679 is better than nothing. My blog has commented extensively on HR 2679. My latest article on the subject, at the following address, includes a list of my earlier articles on the subject -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/hr-2679-now-has-senate-companion-bill.html At the outset, I want to say that Ed Brayton is a lousy hypocrite who pretends to be open-minded but has permanently banned me from his blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, because he disagreed with me.

Now in regard to HR 2679, the bill that would bar attorney fee awards in establishment clause cases: Ed is only concerned with the chilling effect that HR 2679 would have on would-be plaintiffs and is not at all concerned about the chilling effect that the threats of exorbitant attorney fee awards have on government actions that the courts might rule to be constitutional. Ed also tries to justify these exorbitant attorney fee awards by pointing out that the plaintiffs or their attorneys get paid only if they win, but the governments do not get paid when they win.

I support HR 2679, but I think that it would be better to just have a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause cases and free exercise clause cases. My reasons are as follows:

(1) A cap on fee awards should be able to cover the attorney fees for the worst violations.

(2) Public officials often find themselves between a rock and a hard place in regard to public expressions of religion, e.g., where there is a question of whether to allow a private individual or organization to express religion in a public place, there is a threat of a free exercise lawsuit if such expression is censored and a threat of an establishment clause lawsuit if such expression is allowed. With just a ban on fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits, public officials would rather avoid a free exercise lawsuit than avoid an establishment clause lawsuit and hence would tend to lean too far towards protecting free exercise at the expense of church-state separation. Having a cap on fee awards for both establishment clause and free exercise clause lawsuits would keep the playing field level.

(3) I think that this fee cap would have a much better chance of passing than an outright ban on fee awards in establishment clause cases.

However, I still feel that HR 2679 is better than nothing.

My blog has commented extensively on HR 2679. My latest article on the subject, at the following address, includes a list of my earlier articles on the subject –
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/hr-2679-now-has-senate-companion-bill.html

]]> By: Ed Brayton http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-54180 Ed Brayton Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:29:31 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/#comment-54180 I've replied to this post at my blog. I'm curious to see whether you'll apply your reasoning in a coherent and consistent manner, or whether you'll apply it hypocritically. If it's "profoundly wrong" and "irresponsible in the extreme" to make taxpayers pay for bad actions by politicians they elect, then do you also support ending fee shifting in free exercise or free speech cases? If you're consistent, you have to. If not, you're contradicting yourself. I’ve replied to this post at my blog. I’m curious to see whether you’ll apply your reasoning in a coherent and consistent manner, or whether you’ll apply it hypocritically. If it’s “profoundly wrong” and “irresponsible in the extreme” to make taxpayers pay for bad actions by politicians they elect, then do you also support ending fee shifting in free exercise or free speech cases? If you’re consistent, you have to. If not, you’re contradicting yourself.

]]> By: republicanpundit http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-54181 republicanpundit Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:32:45 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/08/03/ending-corporate-welfare/#comment-54181 ACLU must be stopped. This looks like as good a way as is possible!! Nice post ACLU must be stopped. This looks like as good a way as is possible!!

Nice post

]]>