Sneaky language from the ACLU on yesterday’s passage of HR 2679
Posted on September 27, 2006
From the ACLU press release: ACLU Criticizes House Passage of “Public Expression of Religion Act,” Says Bill Weakens Individual Religious Freedom
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005″ (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment.
“The House has once again shown little regard for the Bill of Rights in voting to limit Americans’ ability to keep the government from intruding on religious expression,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The bill’s supporters claim they are protecting religious freedom, when in fact this bill will undermine it. We are deeply dismayed that the House adopted this proposal and urge the Senate to reject this bill and protect the Constitution.”
The ability to recover attorneys’ fees in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects the religious liberty of all Americans.
People who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees — often totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so. But more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and the Constitution.
To whom do attorneys fees go? Attorneys fees go to attorneys, not “citizens.” The ACLU’s disingenuousness oozes through this entire release. The fact is, this bill would cut them off from millions of dollars. Their lament about citizens being “required to pay their own legal fees” is phony to the nth degree. The ACLU invents many of these cases by finding an “offense” (like when they initiated a scavenger hunt to find religiously-themed monuments in Utah), then finding an “injured party,” then representing this client PRO BONO. So, of course, the ACLU is lying about citizen’s responsibility for any costs associated with the ridiculous cases the ACLU regularly burdens innocent communities with. Typically, there is no “injury” or government coercion of any sort, simply “offense” at the presence of some religious symbol on public grounds. Sometimes there’s not even that. The ACLU has abused the section of the US Code they have come to rely on as hammer on the taxpayer piggy bank and this resolution is a common sense response to that abuse. The statute was adopted to assist indigent citizens, not to further enrich the rich.
Under the law which would be amended by PERA should it pass the Senate, the ACLU may file suit after suit and even if it loses, the prevailing defendant may not recover attorneys fees or costs associated with the suit. So the ACLU could never lose and the resource-poor town or school stalked by the ACLU and its giant endowment could never win. How is this a level playing field? All this bill does is make it a fair fight — taking an arrow of intimidation from the ACLU’s bloody quiver and removing the greedy hand of the ACLU from your pocket and mine.
This still needs to pass the Senate, which will be a much more difficult hurdle, so make sure to let your Senators know you want their support on it.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “Sneaky language from the ACLU on yesterday’s passage of HR 2679”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I’m actually relieved. I thought the ACLU was just a tool of Satan. At least now I know they’re all about the dollars. At least that’s somewhat American.
To whom do attorneys fees go? Attorneys fees go to attorneys, not “citizens.”
I think you misunderstood the language. Here, “the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens” means the recovery of fees paid by citizens to attorneys. “Return” would have been a better word than “recovery.”
Paul–
I know precisely how it works…no misunderstanding here. Please reread the post where I explain exactly how the ACLU has used the statute to enrich itself. These clients typically PAY NO ATTORNEYS FEES as the ACLU works PRO BONO (free), so what would be “returned” OR “recovered?” The only transfer of cash is from your bank account to the ACLU’s.
“These clients typically PAY NO ATTORNEYS FEES as the ACLU works PRO BONO (free), so what would be “returned” OR “recovered?””
If the ACLU doesn’t get paid, its hte clients that will have to pay. Thus Only the rich will have their religious rights protected.
“If the ACLU doesn’t get paid, its hte clients that will have to pay.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The ACLU has an enormous endowment and an operating budget of more than $140 million per year. They represent ALL clients PRO BONO and can continue to do so without using my money to do so. You are simply misinformed gfactor.
“They represent ALL clients PRO BONO”
And they’ll have to ask their clients to pay once fees are not longer provided for government violations of religious rights. So only the rich will have their religious rights protected.
Why would they have to ask their clients to pay? If they want ME to pay for their ridiculous lawsuits I have a problem with it. If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors.
“Why would they have to ask their clients to pay?”
Uh, because people need to get paid. You know this right?
“If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors.”
And there will be less cases they can take on, unless their clients pay. Ergo, the rich will have access to rights, while those of us who can’t afford it won’t. Next time a school district messes up, like in Dover, How well protected they are will depend on how rich the people there are. No matter how clearly the government is violating their rights.
From what I have seen the ACLU is more likely to infringe on religious rights than support them. They have sent letters to churches threatening them not to preach about political issues. I surely to not see anything in the First Amendment that limits a churches free speech.
Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision.
“Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision.”
Yeah. And our decision is that the poor are going to have to get someone to help them because we feel that the governmetn should be able to violate their rights for free.