Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beekay · 05-06-2003, 03:47 AM

Judge awards $1 in school prayer case
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/05/sc....ap/index.html

Quote:

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge has awarded $1 in damages to a former high school student who secured a restraining order allowing her to pray over a public address system before her school's 1999 home football games.

This short story confused me. What does a restraining order have to do with using a PA system? I thought restraining orders kept people away from each other.

And this story implies that she was allowed to use the PA system. Unless I'm reading it wrong. I'm confused. Can someone help? Thanks.

Jewel · 05-06-2003, 04:07 AM

I'm a bit confused by that as well...

Her constitutional rights were not violated -- she was not prohibited from praying. She was only prohibited from pushing her religion on others through the use of the PA system. The court should have charged her for the taxpayer money she wasted.

Stephen Maturin · 05-06-2003, 07:03 AM

Much like a neutered dog, I don't get it. Too little information is often every bit as useless as no information at all, and this AP story bears that out rather nicely.

The history of this particular school district's policy on prayer before football games, along with the Supreme Court's reasons for finding the final version of that policy unconstitutional, can be found in Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Roe.

It's just a guess, but I suspect that at the time this student filed suit there was a federal court of appeals decision in effect holding that the prayer policy violated the Establishment Clause. It looks like the district changed its policy to comport with the court of appeals ruling, and that the change in policy prompted this kid's lawsuit.

A restraining order can be crafted to do almost anything, so the use of that term in the article doesn't come as a big surprise. However, given the status of the Santa Fe litigation at that time, how this girl's lawyers managed to persuade the judge to issue an order of the sort described in the article is a complete friggin' mystery. It's also tough to see how the plaintiff is entitled to an award of nominal damages plus attorney fees (no doubt a sizeable chunk o' change after all this time) considering that the Supreme Court ultimately vindicated the complained-of policy change.

Stephen Maturin · 05-06-2003, 08:20 AM

There's a more detailed write-up on the case here. Still not a hundred percent clear in all respects, but we're getting there.

beekay · 05-06-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

The "plaintiffs have gone to great lengths to reopen issues that were long ago resolved and to make a public spectacle out of this case," Lake wrote in his ruling, which attorneys received on Friday. "Plaintiffs are clearly not interested in resolving this case unless resolution includes a high-profile public display, such as a trial or a published opinion."

It's always a pleasure to hear from a judge who can see right through the crap and stop it in its tracks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2003, 04:07 AM	#2
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	I'm a bit confused by that as well... Her constitutional rights were not violated -- she was not prohibited from praying. She was only prohibited from pushing her religion on others through the use of the PA system. The court should have charged her for the taxpayer money she wasted.

05-06-2003, 07:03 AM	#3
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Much like a neutered dog, I don't get it. Too little information is often every bit as useless as no information at all, and this AP story bears that out rather nicely. The history of this particular school district's policy on prayer before football games, along with the Supreme Court's reasons for finding the final version of that policy unconstitutional, can be found in Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Roe. It's just a guess, but I suspect that at the time this student filed suit there was a federal court of appeals decision in effect holding that the prayer policy violated the Establishment Clause. It looks like the district changed its policy to comport with the court of appeals ruling, and that the change in policy prompted this kid's lawsuit. A restraining order can be crafted to do almost anything, so the use of that term in the article doesn't come as a big surprise. However, given the status of the Santa Fe litigation at that time, how this girl's lawyers managed to persuade the judge to issue an order of the sort described in the article is a complete friggin' mystery. It's also tough to see how the plaintiff is entitled to an award of nominal damages plus attorney fees (no doubt a sizeable chunk o' change after all this time) considering that the Supreme Court ultimately vindicated the complained-of policy change.

05-06-2003, 08:20 AM	#4
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	There's a more detailed write-up on the case here. Still not a hundred percent clear in all respects, but we're getting there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.