Posted on 12/03/2004 10:08:59 AM PST by mukraker
All the crazy "civil rights" suits filed by the ACLU and other secular organizations are allowed to have their attorney's fees paid for by the taxpayer, if they win their cases.
It's all legal under USC TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1988.
Under this law "...the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs...."
As discussed on the Friday December 3 Rush Limbaugh show, California Congressman Duke Cunnngham has promised he will take this matter up with various Congressional leaders, including the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner.
...developing...
It's about time.
Well, yes, but first, they have to WIN, and second, the judge has to decide it's worth awarding attorney's fees.
They have been winning. Recall the cases declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? No religious displays during Christmas on public property? etc etc Anbd with the 9th Circuit Court, those judges are awarding attorney's fees.
Well yes, so the problem is not that they are being awarded attorney's fees, but rather that they are winning cases that they shouldn't.
A Vermont Teddy Bear
A two month supply of Cortaslim
A membership to eHarmony.
Any other good suggestions?
I've heard that Sean Hannity has a book or two out. Also, I've been hearing that The Virginian-Pilot newspaper is running a holiday special on two-year subscriptions, although their coverage of Philadelphia-area news may be a bit scant...
I have always believed that: 1) not one settlement agreement should be concluded by the government WE ELECTED with the so-called "American" Civil Liberties Union; and 2) not one cent paid from taxpayer funds to these Bolsheviks for attorneys fees, costs or any other reason. Fight these RED space aliens through the Supreme Court and make the Supreme Court go on record if they uphold decisions favoring the ACLU.
Re #7 - I hope you've got a pre-nup and a good lawyer, Mate!
Actually, they don't have to win in court. They use 42 USSC 1988 as a threat to win out-of-court settlements.
Ah, OK, I hadn't thought of that. Only why is the government caving to threats like that? Hmm. I can, however, see that being used as an intimidation tactic in civil suits between private parties.
Most of California's congressmen have a very high ACLU Favorable rating.
I didn't see your response before I reposted this to you in another thread. Sorry.
No prob! Thanks for following up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.