Good morning my fellow KOSsacks! This is the first diary in a regular series that I'll be writing, hopefully on a regular basis. You know how work can get and all..
My first topic was highlighted this morning on AAR's Rachel Maddow show - attorney fees charged for civil rights cases. This already looks like it could be another 'tort reform' ala Rovian political strategy, however it's actually much worse than that.
Enter H.R. 3609, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2003, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN,9). To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.
In other words - civil rights lawyers would be prevented from receiving the already nominal fees they charge, but only on cases involving a religious issue. More on the flip..
The bill itself is very simple. Here's the condensed version:
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.
(a) CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.".
(b) ATTORNEYS FEES- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'.
As demonstrated with Rove's modifications to the tort system in Texas, this move would deprive a significant number of constitutional law attorneys of their income. In effect, it would discourage all lawyers from taking such cases unless they would be willing to work pro-bono. It would also unbalance political donations since such lawyers would not be able to donate as much, giving those who receive donations from corporations and corporate officials a larger advantage than they already have. We all know what that means..
Also, and more importantly, the simple fact that this bill cites the First Amendment's 'establishment of religion' clause and then provides for any kind of limits in regards to civil court cases involving religion is a violation of the Constitution itself. So as you would expect, all the coin-changers are in the temples pushing this one on, and acting as if efforts to stop it are efforts to take away freedom of religion. Oh, so sorry we're not all gun-toting Jesus freaks like you, Rep. Hostettler, Charlton Heston and Antonin Scalia. I happen to be a Roman Catholic, and it's my impression that if Jesus saw the way these people were defaming him, he'd perform a special coming just so he could slap a 'ho.
Speaking of Scalia, we also have a test to him and a couple other justices of the Supreme Court. As many of us know, Rehnquist and Scalia (and Thomas to some extent) like to refer to themselves as 'originalists' - justices who believe that the intent of the Constitution's writers is embodied in the exact text of the document. SCOTUS justices who choose to side with the intent of this bill - which is to essentially discourage lawyers from taking a religious-based civil rights case because they won't get paid for it - then they would demonstrate themselves as radical activist hypocrite justices.
As if the Republican Congress would impeach that kind of activist judge..