Wednesday, July 21, 2010

"Amicus" support for our "prayer" lawsuit against the SOCCCD

     Recently, three groups have filed amicus (friend of the court) letters in support of our “prayer” lawsuit against the South Orange County Community College District (aka Westphal v. Wagner).
     One of the organizations is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Here’s an excerpt from their letter:


     Another letter/brief was jointly filed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.
     Here are some excerpts:

(Click on graphic to enlarge it)
(Click on graphic to enlarge it)

Pictured: Karla Westphal, speaking before the SOCCCD board of trustees

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where's our little "lawyer' colleague who'll tell us how bad this suit is?

Anonymous said...

I know, right? Where IS that lawyerly fellow?? ES

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Roy, Karla, the ADL, the state academic senate, and all the rest...for writing the perfect ticket to Sacramento from O.C. for Don Wagner. Nice going! (Thanks a lot! (stupid suckers!))

Roy Bauer said...

Right, 9:56, Wagner will win against a Democrat in the most Republican district in the state because we are suing the district. After all, the prayer issue is all that anyone could talk about during the primary!

Guess how many reporters contacted me about it!

--That's right: none.

Thanks, though, for your brilliant rhetoric, 9:56. Dazzling, that. --BvT

Anonymous said...

So basically, Malissa Fox doesn't stand a chance? Good because she drank the kool-aid.

Anonymous said...

Roy, 9:56's point is NOT that "Wagner will win against a Democrat in the most Republican district in the state because we are suing the district." The point is that Wagner (barely) won a primary against other Republicans because he made it a campaign issue among his base that you are suing the district. So yes, Roy, nice going. 9:56's rhetoric (and analysis of the issue) is much more "dazzling" on this point than your own.

BvT said...

"Stupid suckers!" is dazzling? No, it's loutish.
In the end, Wagner won 33% to Choi's 30%. I honestly doubt that our lawsuit helped him even that much. (For all that we know, it hurt him.)
Further, as I've explained here before, it is by no means clear whether one (with my values anyway) should hope for Wagner's defeat. To secure "conservative" goals in Sacramento, the Repubs need someone who can work with the other side. Don ain't that guy.
In the meantime, the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment is worth fighting for, and we have a chance here of making a difference in that arena.
One more thing: it's bad enough having to deal with (often loutish) backseat drivers. That they insist on remaining "anonymous" while other people are actually trying to get things done and taking hits for it is really annoying.
So, favor us with more of your dazzling wisdom, oh cowardly and sniveling "anonymous." --BvT

Anonymous said...

You set up a straw man, logic boy, and then nicely knocked it down. Hardly dazzling on your part. 9:56 was not, as you initially responded, saying that you helped Wagner beat Fox. 9:56's point was that you helped Wagner beat Choi. You can dispute it, as you try in your last comment, and you can change the subject by saying that it's not clear whether you should want Wagner to win. But your initial snarky response commits an obvious logical fallacy in order to dodge the equally obvious point in the original comment. Maybe you get away with that in a class of 19 year olds too afraid to challenge their professor. But some of us here notice the lack of honest, intellectual rigor in your posts.

BvT said...

I never suggested that 9:56's point was that the suit helped Wagner beat Fox. I was suggesting that, in view of demographics, the ultimate victory of the Republican candidate is nearly a foregone conclusion.

And once again, we find an "Anonymous" hero making nasty remarks--this time about my teaching, as though that had any relevance, something you, 9:50, know nothing about.

Coward.

Reveal yourself or at least cease the personal attacks. Learn some logic and some civility.

Anonymous said...

"9:56 was not, as you initially responded, saying that you helped Wagner beat Fox. 9:56's point was that you helped Wagner beat Choi."

That seemed pretty obvious; where does BvT say something to the contrary?

Anonymous said...

Cowardly lout, passive-aggressive snark-meister:

You're always the same. Instantly recognizable. ("Roy," "Logic Boy")

Orwellian. INSECURE.

Honest intellectual rigor is the most consistent characteristic of BvT's blog in general, and is just what seems to chafe you so.

Now: your name, please?

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...