September 14, 2011

Your morning facetiousness, courtesy David Ziemer

Jeez Louise.

By the way, the Seventh Circuit decision to which Mr. Ziemer refers, available here, is possibly the narrowest victory for religious accommodationists yet achieved. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook, Joel Flaum, and Kenneth Ripple,* split 2-1 on the question of whether a Waukesha County school district violated the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause when it held a graduation ceremony inside a church populated to the brim with "indisputably and strongly Christian" sectarian proselytizations — which, unlike David Ziemer's personally offending "socialism" bugaboos, are manifestations of actual, as-legally-defined religion for Establishment Clause purposes.**

Judge Ripple wrote the majority opinion (pp. 1-54) while Judge Flaum authored its dissent (pp. 55-67). Judge Easterbrook joined Judge Ripple's opinion but wrote nothing, which is unfortunate. Because the last time (Chief) Judge Easterbrook weighed in on an Establishment Clause case, he completely missed the point*** and addressed the president's responsibilities pursuant to the National Day of Prayer rather than the Act of Congress that imposed those responsibilities. Thus Judge Easterbrook's attitude toward these types of controversy is suspect.

In other words, the challengers to the school district lost by the luck of the draw. They need to get a hearing before the entire Seventh Circuit.

* All three are Saint Ronald Reagan appointees, incidentally.

** Unless maybe Mr. Ziemer can detect some elements of Paganism.

*** Deliberately, one cannot say. And that's the problem.

4 comments:

John Foust said...

Who knew that admitting we have a government and an environment would be a type of religion.

This guy is a lawyer? I wonder what else he'd like to declare to be a religion, so he could remove it from the public edumacations.

His other columns are a hoot, too. His notion of the only way you could be an environmental defense lawyer, for example: if you were an expert at defending "individuals and businesses from Constitution-trampling zealots from the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency." Presumably the DNR and EPA don't deserve representation.

They need the outrageous opinions to boost page views, hmm?

illusory tenant said...

He's a smart lawyer. Bit cranky today, albeit.

illusory tenant said...

Speaking of "Constitution-trampling zealots from the Department of Natural Resources," JoAnne Kloppenburg has a case before another of her biggest admirers, Mike Gableman, on November 1.

gnarlytrombone said...

Reading the part about the posters featuring Jesus together with teen pop stars... Tiger (and Lamb) Beat.