Posted on 02/22/2006 6:52:51 AM PST by Nextrush
The Dover Area school board voted Tuesday night to pay 1 million dollars in legal fees to the attorneys that successfully sued the school district over its intelligent-design policy.... After board members voted, Beth Eveland, one of the parents who sued the district, told the board she and other plaintiffs at the meeting considered it a fair offer. However, she said they were dismayed that the taxpayers and children were left with the bill and believed the old board members should be held accountable. The smallest amount of accountability is an apology, she said.... Heather Geesey, the only remaining member from the previous board, said after the meeting that she took offense to Eveland's remarks. "I don't think I have anything to apologize for," she said. Former board member Ronald Short also isn't planning to apologize. "I don't have anything to apologize for," Short said. "I believe in what the board did before." The $1 million dollar figure was the result of an agreement worked out between plantiffs' attorneys and the district's solicitor. In exchange, the board agrees it will not appeal.... Rothschild, the plantiffs lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plantiffs to more than $2 million in costs.... Plaintiffs attorney wanted to make sure that other public school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said, We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district."...... Approximately $250,000 will go directly to recovering out-of-pocket expenses, Rothschild said, and will be divided among American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Pepper-Hamilton. The rest will go toward the ACLU and Americans United.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
The judge never decided on the legitimacy of any religious belief. As you said, that's not his place.
What he did decide on was whether ID is secular science. This case is much narrower than most of your rhetoric has been.
"Judicial privilege" .....
Then what are they? They certainly aren't "legitimate scientific theories"...
So they ask the judge for a couple of million. Then they settle for $1,000,000. And they agree no appeal which would just increase the size of the cost to the Board. Too bad, I'd like to see an appeal all the way to the SCOTUS. That would kill ID for good and we'd have to wait for it's new face to morph into view.
I'd say the Board got off easy.
Any legal eagles out there know if the Board can sue the ex-members to recover some of this $$?
Making a profit doesn't disqualify an organization ~ enriching individuals with a tie to the organization does.
In this one phrase he said that creationism is, in fact, a religious doctrine, and so is ID since it "cannot uncouple itself".
That is, the judge has declared that both creationism and ID are religious.
I say they are not and that the government does not have the authority, under this Constitution, to tell me what is or is not religious in nature.
I know this is a narrow reading and one not much liked by the folks who want to impose evolutionary doctrines (presumably secular in nature) in the schools. Still, any religious nature someone might ascribe to something, is not really the business of government.
For pete's sake, there are still people in this world who worship the Moon as a goddess. Their beliefs do not make the Moon a goddess for me, and I hope not for you either. Unfortunately, because there are such people, this judge could well rule that any further expenditure of public money to reach the Moon is prohibited by what he takes to be the doctrine of separation of church and state.
In reality, the judge in this case is like the emperor who had no clothes. Still, he is praised "to the Heavens" by those who believe that the decision he dictated is the work of a genius.
He's still pantless and shirtless, and gownless. He is, as are so many of his supporters, intellectual Luddites who want to keep on weaving the old way and are unwilling to let the new doctrines of secular analysis into the picture.
Who are the legal eagles 'round here?
An elaborately conceived fund raising scheme for the UnDiscovery Institute?
Everyone on Free Republic is a Constitutional authority. However, the issue involved here is the question of immunity of governmental officials for acts committed while in office. I suppose every state has its own rules. Here's something I found from some kind of manual put out by the Dep't of Justice regarding federal employees: Immunity of Government Officers Sued as Individuals for Official Acts.
This has no bearing on the situation of the school board in Dover, but it gives some clues as to the issues that may be involved, that is: (1) is there a state statute that grants them immunity? (2) if so, is it limited to acts that don't violate the state or Federal Constitutions? I suppose that last question would be a killer. Those Dover bozos may have some real exposure.
Not to mention misspeaking under oath.
I am neither an attorney, nor do I play one on TV or chase ambulances; but that said, here's my understanding:
1) it's America; anybody CAN sue anybody. Whether they will prevail is another matter, which brings me to point #2:
2) many states (I do not know if PA is one of them) have laws that basically make public officials immune to being held personally liable for their actions taken in the course of acting in their capacity as a public official. There's IS a caveat, however: some states have a provision which makes a public official personally liable IF THE ACTION TAKEN BY HIM WAS DONE FOR PERSONAL OR OTHER REASONS OTHER THAN JUST "DOING HIS JOB."
An example: a public official issues a fine to you for not having your dog licensed. It turns out your dog was licensed, but the tag fell off the dog's collar. You can't sue the official personally -- he was acting within his capacity as dog catcher. Now suppose the dog catcher found you having drinks with his wife at a loacl bistro, and now he hates your guts. He then issues 100 fines for your dog not having a license, even though you don't own a dog, and you have to take a week off from work to go to court to deal with this harrassment. In some states, you CAN sue him PERSONALLY for crap like that, because his actions were motivated by personal animosity, and had nothing to do with the proper performance of his public duty as a dog catcher.
Where does this leave us WRT the former Dover School Board Members who foisted the ill-conceived ID policy on the citizens of Dover, and the resulting legal bill? I'm not sure. You could make an argument that their actions were the result of their desire to advance the personal religious beliefs (for which there was substantial evidence presented during the trial), but conversely, they could argue that setting policy regarding course content was within their jurisdiction as School Board memebers, and that they THOUGHT they had valid secular reason to justify the policy.
Who would win? Damned if I know. Do they have the assets to cover the judgement if they lose? Doubtful. Would it be a great object lesson for other meddlesome nitwits on School Boards around the country? You betcha!
PH; if you know of any lawyers on the ping list, you might ask them to weigh in on this; as I don't actually know for sure -- I just watched lots of Perry Mason when I was a kid.
Without the state, education would revert back to a privilege for the rich few. It's state mandated education that made this country great and it's keeping religion out of science class that will keep it great.
You'd need to find someone who knew the situation in Pennsylvania. By Googling around, I found their statutes, and I stumbled into this:
§ 2310. Sovereign immunity reaffirmed; specific waiver.So there may be other statutes involved, and there are almost certainly cases that interpret those statutes. We can't figure it out from here. I wouldn't be surprised if the current school board has their attorneys looking into it.Pursuant to section 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is hereby declared to be the intent of the General Assembly that the Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. When the General Assembly specifically waives sovereign immunity, a claim against the Commonwealth and its officials and employees shall be brought only in such manner and in such courts and in such cases as directed by the provisions of Title 42 (relating to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) or 62 (relating to Procurement), unless otherwise specifically authorized by statute.
Source: Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.
Spoken like a true wearer of brown boots.
I've argued on other threads that they should be subject to impeachment and removal for high crimes (misfeasance and/or malfeasance).
Specifically, the State mandates that the local schools teach science. The former SB members ordered that pseudoscience be taught as though it were science.
This is IMO better than a First Amendment lawsuit because it applies to Ebonics as English, Afrocentrism as history, holocaust denial, etc.
Also, the Senate can impose a lifetime ban on public office or emmployment.
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.