The judge in Westphal v. Wagner—the “prayer” case—issued a ruling today denying the district’s motion to dismiss the suit. The ruling also granted the students’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms. (Two students are among the seven or eight who have brought this suit regarding the district’s embrace of prayer practices. Anonymity protects them from harassment.)
And so the case goes forward to the preliminary-injunction hearing. The court refused Defendants’ request to conclude that we have failed to state a valid legal claim. This means that, according to the judge, if the factual claims alleged in our suit are true, we have a substantial legal claim, though, obviously, one that we can still lose. Time will tell.
It’s the first big step in this case.
So, next, is the hearing on our preliminary-injunction motion on May 3.
7 comments:
Here's the key phrase from the court's ruling.
"The Court has carefully read and considered each alleged prayer and accompanying comments (including slide-show presentation at one of the events). The Court has also carefully read the applicable caselaw from the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals that the parties have submitted. Having taken all the facts and law into consideration, the Court notes that many of the challenged statements do not appear to violate the Establishment Clause. However, at this state of the litigation, the Court is not able to determine as a matter of law whether the entire course of conduct taken as a whole does or does not violate the Establishment Clause."
Hardly a ringing victory, much less a statement "according to the judge" that you "have a substantial legal claim." That's especially so at a motion to dismiss stage where the court must accept everything in the complaint as true.
And it's not the "first big step in this case." The first big step was when the original complaint was recognized as so poorly drafted by your own attorneys who actually drafted the thing that they voluntarily re-wrote it instead of defending it.
The first big step in the case was the trustees shoving their religious fervor down the throats of the various assemblages--or is this too obvious for you?
9:50, you attribute to me two assertions: (1) that plaintiffs have achieved a “ringing victory” and (2) that, according to the judge, plaintiffs have “ a substantial legal claim.”
Clearly, I stated or implied neither.
In fact, I reported that two of the defendants’ motions were denied (that is a fact) and that,
“according to the judge, if the factual claims alleged in our suit are true, we have a substantial legal claim, though, obviously, one that we can still lose.”
Obviously, these cases go through a series of stages, and we (plaintiffs) have survived one filter and are now entering a new stage, owing to two adverse decisions (re defendants’ motions). I did not imply or state that the judge favors our side.
It appears that the judge is leaving open a decision based on the totality of district actions instead of simply a set of actions considered individually and in isolation. Thus, the case is far from decided, despite his or her disinclination to accept some subset of our particular claims.
In future, do please read more carefully. –BvT
Roy, I did not ascribe the first assertion you allege I ascribed to you. I said it was hardly a "ringing victory." I did not say you did. I characterized the ruling as hardly a ringing victory and my quote of the court's decision, which casts substantial doubt on your allegations, supports my characterization.
Second, you did state that "acording to the judge" and if your allegations are true, your side has "a substantial legal claim." That's your language.
You fault me for ascribing to you one thing I did not ascribe and one thing that you, in fact, said. Weak.
"In future, do please read more carefully."
Reading between your lines, 11:48, it appears that you're all comfy with the prayerful trustees. Why is that? What's in it for you?
11:48, are you that incorrigible reader that occasionally darkens this blog? You are simply missing my point. You quote me but fail to quote me fully, thereby failing to disclose how I qualified my claim. It ain't rocket science. Legally speaking, the judge has decided that (if our facts are facts) we have a substantial claim; as the rest of my sentence makes clear (I believe), this does not mean that the judge has ruled in our favor.
And when you say that X is "hardly" a victory, you are implying that someone has made that claim. C'mon. These games of yours are childish.
There's a job in it for her. That's obvious.
Post a Comment