Queen Nancy [Padberg], President of the SOCCCD board of trustees (and opponent of "heathens"), has put out a press release re the “Westphal v. Wagner” Prayer lawsuit. Here it is in its entirety:
Court Upholds Constitutionality of Invocations at South Orange County Community College Events
Gary L. Poertner, Chancellor, and Nancy Padberg, Board President of the South Orange County Community College District, wish to apprise the college community of recent developments in the Westphal v. Wagner lawsuit as communicated by the District’s counsel, John A. Vogt, from the firm Jones Day in the following summary:
Westphal v. Wagner is a federal lawsuit that was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California in November 2009. The plaintiffs in the case are professors from Saddleback and Irvine Valley College [among others]. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contend that the Trustees, Chancellor, and President of Saddleback College have violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by including a non-sectarian invocation at Saddleback College graduation and scholarship ceremonies, as well as at bi-annual Chancellor’s Opening Sessions.
 |
| The board should not "placate those heathens," wrote* Nancy |
The plaintiffs previously moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction over such speech. The Court denied that motion. The District then filed a motion for summary judgment, based upon uncontroverted evidence, to dismiss the case as a matter of law. On January 28, 2011, the District Court granted the District’s motion on plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the invocations, and found that such speech, in this context, does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The District Court’s decision is now the third federal court case upholding the constitutionality of invocations before public college and university events, falling in line with the opinion of the Sixth Circuit in Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1997) (which upheld the constitutionality of invocations at Tennessee State) and the opinion of the Seventh Circuit in Tanford v. Brand, 104 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1997) (which upheld the constitutionality of invocations at Indiana University).
* * *
The Trustees, Chancellor, and Saddleback College President are pleased with this outcome. They consistently have maintained that the practice of including a brief, non-sectarian ceremonial invocation at significant District and college events—a tradition that traces its roots to the first graduation ceremony at Saddleback College over 40 years ago—is well-grounded in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as well as our nation’s rich history and culture. Like the invocation given at the annual Army-Navy football game or our presidential inaugurations, the invocations that have been given at district and college events are not used to proselytize or advance one (or any) religion, but instead, to bring about a dignity, solemnity, and gravitas to these important ceremonial events.
 |
| Nancy has some interesting views. (Click on graphic to enlarge.) |
There's nothing new here. We reported these developments
several days ago:
recent developments in the prayer lawsuit. (Please note what Nancy's press release neglects to mention.)
I stand by what I reported
then:
Today, Judge Klausner issued a substantive ruling according to which (1) the Board’s generic invocations have a permissible purpose and effect; (2) we plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Mathur’s Fall 2009 “Jesus” video and Wagner’s 2008 scholarship ceremony rant were unconstitutional; (3) the Defendants will be ordered to comply with their policy regarding invocations (i.e., they can’t be sectarian, hostile, etc.).
Next come proposed judgments (by plaintiffs and defendants) and a settlement conference (with another judge).
Really, lots of things could happen. Don't read too much into this.
In fact, a
settlement hearing is scheduled for the 17th. It has not been cancelled. Now, why do you suppose Nancy and crew will be attending this hearing? 'Cause they've won and it's over?
It's not over.
 |
| *I don't think I've ever been referred to as a "heathen" before. (Click on graphic to enlarge.) |
7 comments:
So, when you are called out on your selective reporting, you'll fess up as to what is actually happening? Me thinks Bauer, Westphal, and the other plaintiffs should have to personally reimburse the district for this absurd litigation and waste of taxpayer money. Are there any attorneys out there who would like to take the case? Bauer and Westphal use the taxpayer to support their "principle" and the district uses the taxpayer to defend their "practices". Who is watching out for the taxpayer? How much did this litigation cost the taxpayer? Who would like to do a public records act request regarding the amount of money spent by the SOCCCD on this absurd case?
9:46: if you think that defending the Constitution is a waste of money, you are, indeed, moronic.
Why, 9:46, are you blaming the principled parties for the "waste of taxpayer money"? Why not look to the theocratic numbskulls whose behavior led to the suit?
Does not a statement such as "take back our Christian country" send shivers down your spine?
Hey Roy, why did ya remove your own post @ 10:11? Is it because you actually admitted to your audience you engaged in censorship? I saw it, it was plain as day! Ooooops!
I have censored nothing. I do believe that I deleted a comment of my own that somehow doubled up. I occasionally find spam to delete. Over night, I did briefly turn off "comments" owing to the coarse comments from trolls and the like that began to rapidly accumulate. This morning, I turned comments back on.
Post a Comment