GAO: Lots of Places to Hold Gitmo Prisoners »« Rives on Darwin’s ‘Gravest Objection’

Liberty Counsel Gets One Right

The old saying about blind squirrels and nuts comes to mind when I see the case just filed by Christian right legal group Liberty Counsel. They’re suing the city of Plainfield, Illinois for denying the use of a community room in the town hall to show a film about religion and the founding fathers. And they’re right.

The town’s policy on the community rooms says that they are “are available for meetings and functions associated with the Village of Plainfield, local government entities, groups dedicated to the promotion of the civic, cultural, educational, and informational needs of the community, and local businesses.” But they are not available for “religious services or other religious purposes.” This is a clear violation of numerous Supreme Court precedents, most obviously Lamb’s Chapel v Center Moriches (a 9-0 ruling from 1989).

You can read the full legal complaint here. I expect this one to either be settled quickly by the defendants or, if they’re foolish enough to fight it, to see the judge grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The city will then likely have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs, which will not, of course, prompt any faux outrage from Liberty Counsel about big city lawyers intimidating the poor little town and its good Christian inhabitants.

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    And let me guess: they are going to win this case by citing a precedent established by…wait for it…the ACLU!

  2. Alverant says

    Just wait until it’s a non-christian group looking to use that room. I’m almost willing to bet money that’s why the ordance was created in the first place.

  3. says

    Well, the Lamb’s Chapel case, which is the most obvious precedent, was brought by Pat Robertson’s legal group, the ACLJ. But the ACLU did file a brief in the case on the same side.

  4. Jordan Genso says

    Why is it surprising that they got this one correct? Their position in this case lines up perfectly with their position in every case (that their views shouldn’t be prevented from being promoted). Of course that position is going to be correct sometimes.

    What would be surprising is if they got one right by taking the opposite position when warranted.

    It’d be like someone picking the Detroit Lions every week. They’re going to lose more often than not, but when the Lions do win, it’s no credit to that person who picks them every week.

Leave a Reply