ACLU loses 10 Commandments Case.

[OriginalShroom]

Chalk one up for the good guys here.

ACLU Loses Ten Commandments Case | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Thou shall not remove the Ten Commandments.

That’s the declaration from a federal district court – dismissing a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Dixie County, Fla. and ending a six-year legal battle.

The ACLU sued the county after they allowed a private citizen to erect a six-ton monument of the Ten Commandments atop the steps of the courthouse.
A 75-year-old North Carolina man, who happens to be an ACLU member, objected to the monument – which led to the lawsuit.

Liberty Counsel represented the county and challenged the ACLU’s standing to bring a suit on behalf of a member who lives hundreds of miles away from the monument.”

Senior District Judge Maurice Paul dismissed the case after the ACLU admitted that their client did not plan to buy property in Dixie County and therefore lacks standing to sue.

In addition to dismissing the case, the ACLU will be responsible for several thousand dollars in court costs.

“This was a great victory,” Liberty Counsel Founder Mathew Staver told Fox News. “What it says about the bully tactics by the ACLU is that if you resist them, you can win.”

“The usual way they win is my intimidation or default – when the government officials cave in under the threat of a lawsuit,” Staver said.

The county had a policy that allowed private citizens to put up different kinds of displays – including the religious monuments.

Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, said the ACLU got caught with its hands in the “constitutional cookie jar.”

“It’s prolonged campaign against the good citizens of Dixie County has come to a screeching halt,” he said. “In getting kicked out of court, the ACLU has learned that it cannot impose its San Francisco values upon a small town in Florida – using a phantom member from North Carolina.

The ACLU did not return calls seeking comment.

The ACLU was so desperate to get the 10 Commandments pulled down, that when they couldn't find anyone local who objected, they had to bring in a ringer to object.

I am glad the Judge tossed the case.

 

[Noomi]

What happens when they do find someone local who objects? What is the likelyhood of the case being won then?

 

[OriginalShroom]

At this point, I think the ACLU has prejudiced the judges in that area so much against them that it wouldn't get very far.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Chalk one up for the good guys here.

ACLU Loses Ten Commandments Case | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Thou shall not remove the Ten Commandments.

That’s the declaration from a federal district court – dismissing a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Dixie County, Fla. and ending a six-year legal battle.

The ACLU sued the county after they allowed a private citizen to erect a six-ton monument of the Ten Commandments atop the steps of the courthouse.
A 75-year-old North Carolina man, who happens to be an ACLU member, objected to the monument – which led to the lawsuit.

Liberty Counsel represented the county and challenged the ACLU’s standing to bring a suit on behalf of a member who lives hundreds of miles away from the monument.”

Senior District Judge Maurice Paul dismissed the case after the ACLU admitted that their client did not plan to buy property in Dixie County and therefore lacks standing to sue.

In addition to dismissing the case, the ACLU will be responsible for several thousand dollars in court costs.

“This was a great victory,” Liberty Counsel Founder Mathew Staver told Fox News. “What it says about the bully tactics by the ACLU is that if you resist them, you can win.”

“The usual way they win is my intimidation or default – when the government officials cave in under the threat of a lawsuit,” Staver said.

The county had a policy that allowed private citizens to put up different kinds of displays – including the religious monuments.

Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, said the ACLU got caught with its hands in the “constitutional cookie jar.”

“It’s prolonged campaign against the good citizens of Dixie County has come to a screeching halt,” he said. “In getting kicked out of court, the ACLU has learned that it cannot impose its San Francisco values upon a small town in Florida – using a phantom member from North Carolina.

The ACLU did not return calls seeking comment.

The ACLU was so desperate to get the 10 Commandments pulled down, that when they couldn't find anyone local who objected, they had to bring in a ringer to object.

I am glad the Judge tossed the case.

Actually not.

The case was dismissed per the ACLU’s request:

The case was not decided on First Amendment grounds. Instead, Senior U.S. District Judge Maurice M. Paul granted the ACLU's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case because its "John Doe" plaintiff was no longer considering moving to Dixie County and therefore had no legal standing to bring a case.

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida…noted that the only court decision to rule on the merits of the case, the trial court ruling from 2011, declared the display unconstitutional…Simon noted that the case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the monument could be challenged again if a Dixie County resident decides to file a case.

Ten Commandments stand at Dixie courthouse, after lawsuit is dismissed | Ocala.com

Consequently the ‘monument’ remains un-Constitutional, and subject to a future challenge by someone with standing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What happens when they do find someone local who objects? What is the likelyhood of the case being won then?

As long as the County allows ANY recognized religion the right to erect ( at their own cost) monuments, the ACLU has no case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What happens when they do find someone local who objects? What is the likelyhood of the case being won then?

Yes, based on the 2011 ruling, and previous Supreme Court rulings, the ‘monument’ would likely be ruled un-Constitutional. See, e. g., McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005).

In McCreary the Court held that the Ten Commandments monument was erected solely for the purpose of conjoining church and state, with no legitimate secular purpose.

In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), however, where a Ten Commandments monument was erected on the State Capitol grounds, the Court found that the monument was erected in good faith with a legitimate secular purpose, placed among other similar items, where the intent was not to conjoin church and state.

The Dixie County ‘monument,’ therefore, would fall under McCreary, where there exists no historic context, as was present in the Texas case, and hastily erected solely to provoke and offend.

 

[koshergrl]

Did the ACLU offer to pay the attorney's fees, too?

Lol. They got run out of town on a rail. Losers.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Senior District Judge Maurice Paul dismissed the case after the ACLU admitted that their client did not plan to buy property in Dixie County and therefore lacks standing to sue.
In addition to dismissing the case, the ACLU will be responsible for several thousand dollars in court costs."


Hahahahaha

 

[Oldguy]

I'll bet if a Muslim group wanted to install some kind of monument to Islam and the ACLU went after them (which they would), y'all would have an entirely different opinion of them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wait, the A.C.L.U. is 'the bad guys' then? Defending civil liberties is a no - no?

Hmmm...

 

[MeBelle]

What happens when they do find someone local who objects? What is the likelyhood of the case being won then?

Yes, based on the 2011 ruling, and previous Supreme Court rulings, the ‘monument’ would likely be ruled un-Constitutional. See, e. g., McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005).

In McCreary the Court held that the Ten Commandments monument was erected solely for the purpose of conjoining church and state, with no legitimate secular purpose.

In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), however, where a Ten Commandments monument was erected on the State Capitol grounds, the Court found that the monument was erected in good faith with a legitimate secular purpose, placed among other similar items, where the intent was not to conjoin church and state.

The Dixie County ‘monument,’ therefore, would fall under McCreary, where there exists no historic context, as was present in the Texas case, and hastily erected solely to provoke and offend.

Curious, who did it offend?
From your link:

After a federal judge ruled in August 2011 that the monument was an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state, a crowd of some 1,500 gathered in Cross City, a city with a population of roughly 1,700, to rally for keeping the display.