Just got word that the lawyers filed our “opening brief” last night—in Westphal v. Wagner, our suit challenging prayer practices in the SOCCCD.
As you know, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids government “establishing” religion. When trustees and college/district officials lead prayer (e.g., at commencement), they are acting as agents of the government. At such times, the government is leading religious prayer (“invoking” the Lord) before the religiously diverse community that the colleges serve.
Among the plaintiffs are theists, agnostics, and atheists. They represent members of the community and faculty and students at the two colleges.
I’m told that “defendants” (namely, SOCCCD Board Pres. Wagner, et al.) have 28 days to respond, but they’ll likely get an extension. After they file their response, we can file a reply.
Then: oral argument in court.
The lawyers happened to mention that there are 700 pages in the “Excerpts of Record,” which comprises evidence from both sides.
Sheesh!
For those who wish to read Red Emma’s book review in Sunday’s Times, here’s the link: Book review: 'Kicking In: Stories' by Richard Wirick
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f...
-
Yesterday morning, the Irvine Valley College community received an email from college President, Glenn Roquemore, announcing the coll...
9 comments:
Thanks for the update!
Is this a motion for summary judgment?
Don't think so. --BvT
Faculty ought not to claim to be lawyers. This is a loser.
Signed: A lawyer
10:23, Which faculty exactly are claiming to be lawyers?
Among the plaintiffs in this case are some faculty, but they are not the lawyers.
Do you have a regular practice, 10:23, or just pay your bar dues yearly and leave it at that?
I would think this would go without saying, but apparently I am mistaken. There are forms of litigation that one pursues, not because one expects to win but because an important principle (or, in this case, a move to greater fidelity to a longstanding value) is at stake. Whether or not this case is a "loser" would interest me only if, upon losing, we would leave the "establishment clause" less secure than it had been previously. I doubt that that is the case here. --BvT
Any action since July in the community college prayer case?
Little has occurred. I believe that the judge will make a decision soon regarding a motion to end the suit, but even if that succeeds, the decision can be appealed. I try to report any major developments as they occur. Much of the maneuvering that occurs is unexciting to readers.
Post a Comment