Religion
Related: About this forumJudge throws out atheists’ lawsuit over ‘Year of Bible’ resolution
Saturday, 06 October 2012 17:07
The Philadelphia Inquirer/Information Services
HARRISBURG, PennsylvaniaA federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit by an atheist group that challenged the Pennsylvania Legislatures resolution declaring 2012 the Year of the Bible, but he also chastised the lawmakers for pandering.
In his ruling on Monday, US District Judge Christopher Conner granted the House Republicans motion to dismiss the lawsuit by Freedom From Religion Foundation, saying he was bound by legislative immunity.
However, he issued a strong rebuke of the Legislatures action, which he said pushed the Establishment Clause envelope behind the safety glass of legislative immunity and called the resolution exclusionary and a waste of legislative resources.
At worst, Conner wrote, it is premeditated pandering designed to provide a re-election sound bite for use by members of the General Assembly. At a time when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces massive public policy challenges, these resources would be far better utilized in meaningful legislative efforts for the benefit [of] all of the citizens of the Commonwealth, regardless of their religious beliefs.
http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/faith/33764-judge-throws-out-atheists-lawsuit-over-year-of-bible-resolution
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)In any event, judicial deference to legislative acts, performed within its bona fided authority, is well entrenched under the separation of powers doctrine.
The court here concluded that this nonbinding declaration, whatever one thinks of it on its merits, is within the legislature's authority.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)1st Amendment
Does not the Constitution also state that the people have the right of redress??
It does not state the means so I would assume they could use the courts for that means
rug
(82,333 posts)Clearly the court disagrees with you.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)that uses the Bible for their religion
And the court is wrong ............
cbayer
(146,218 posts)his own decision.
rug
(82,333 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)LARED
(11,735 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
legislative noncontroversial resolutions meeting constitutional requirements?
As I understand it a noncontroversial resolutions carry no force of law.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)it is anything BUT noncontroversial. But I'm sure you will hear none of it. If the circumstances were changed to a "year of the Koran" or some other non-christian "noncontroversy", your opinion would be much, much different, LaRed.
LARED
(11,735 posts)A "noncontroversial resolution" is a resolution that carries no force of law. It's a technical term It's an empty gesture by a state legislative body as far as the constitution is involved.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Unless I am missing the part where you agree that this is anything but uncontroversial and unconstitutional, and well, just plain wrong. Did I miss that part of your post or were you arguing against that idea?
LARED
(11,735 posts)The judge made a legally correct decision.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)LARED
(11,735 posts)1. Politicians will continue to pander whenever, however, and forever in any way possible.
2. What the PA legislative body did was not unconstitutional.
3. Outside of a dislike of pandering I think proclaiming a "year of the bible" by the PA legislators is not a problem.
4. Opinions are not arguments.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)for any suit needs be grounded in material issue, and should legislators require nothing noxious of me, I lack place to stand in complaint
cbayer
(146,218 posts)clearly very unhappy about it.