7th Circuit won't rehear Ind. legislative-prayer case (over standing)

[Pale Blue Dot]

It seems to be that "standing" is being used a lot by the courts these days to avoid ruling on unconstitutional faith-based legislation. I'm not a lawyer, so it may be perfectly legitimate for them to do so, but it sure seems funny.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19563

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined this week to reconsider a ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the practice of sectarian prayers in the Indiana House.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had asked the full court to rehear the case after a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in October in Hinrichs v. Bosma that taxpayers who sued over the prayers did not have the legal standing to do so.

House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the Jan. 15 ruling meant the House could resume its normal practice, which in the past has sometimes included mention of Jesus Christ.

But ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said that wasn’t true because the ruling was based on the litigants’ standing, not on the merits of the case.

“I would hope that the House doesn’t somehow think that this is a validation of the prayer practices,” Falk said.

Falk said the ACLU likely would file a new lawsuit, with plaintiffs who come into contact with the prayers and who therefore might have legal standing, if the former practices resume.

[WillParkinson]

1. So...

Those who actually pay the bills can't say anything about how the money is spent? Weird.

[progressoid]

2. Yeah, I think a lot of judges know that these things are illegal

but to rule that way could brand them as "judicial activists". OR worse, be detrimental to their career.

Letting it ride is an easy out.

[MindPilot]

3. I'm a litigant in a long-running mountaintop cross suit

and just a few months ago, the court suddenly brought up the issue of standing.

What they are saying at a very fundamental level is that a non-theist does not have a right to question the religious practices of government. In other words the courts are now on a path--reversing many decades of affirming religious neutrality in government--which gives the "no preference" clause more weight than the "establishment" clause.

I think the courts will soon replace the Lemon test with "Freedom OF religion; not freedom FROM religion".

[elleng]

4. Just getting into this,

and aol lost my response. BUT check Flast v. Cohen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen

[elleng]

5. MindPilot,

if you'd like to discuss your case, let me know. I'm irritated because my full response was lost, but I have ideas to discuss with you.