Legislation designed to protect municipalities — when groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sue to have Ten Commandments displays or crosses removed from public property — passed the House on a 242-173 vote this afternoon.
H.R. 2679 — the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) — moves on to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. The bill would prohibit the plaintiff in a religious liberties case from being awarded attorneys’ fees for attacking public expressions of faith.
Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., told CitizenLink his bill is absolutely necessary.
"The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, for instance, was told by the ACLU that if they did not remove the tiny cross in the county seal, the county would be sued by the ACLU, the ACLU would probably win, and the county would not only have to pay its attorneys’ fees in the lawsuit, it would have to pay the ACLU’s as well," the congressman said.
Hostettler said when confronted with the possibility of having to pay up to $1 million in attorneys’ fees, L.A. County supervisors chose to remove the cross.
"The ACLU did this without darkening the doorstep of a federal courthouse," he said, "and that needs to change."
…Bob Knight, director of culture and family issues with Concerned Women for America, said another classic example is the ACLU win that forced the Boy Scouts out of their camp in San Diego’s Balboa Park. The ACLU collected $950,000 in legal fees.
"It’s like paying a thug for the privilege of being mugged," Knight said. "The ACLU and other groups have shaken down public officials and private groups and benefited greatly in legal fees. In essence, this is really a ‘stop the bullying’ bill."
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
6 comments
Pardon my ignorance, but I did not think we had a “loser pays” legal system in America. How could it be that someone would have to pay the ACLU’s legal fees if they won?
Scott
Yes–we do have a “loser pays” court system. Actually in most civil cases, particularly when there’s been an appeal, courts will award the winning party legal fees and/or the losing party will have to pay the court fees. Theoretically, it’s meant to discourage people from bringing irrelevant issues to appeal and clogging up the court system.
pretty ironic that the aclu gets paid to take away our religious freedom
Dear Senators of Earth,
Pass this legislation or I will vote against you, your children and your children’s children.
Provided I am not euthanized sometime along the way, of course.
(D’oh! I just gave them more incentive!)
The legislation will pass, it will be signed by the President, and then it will be challenged by the ACLU, who will get the Ninth Circuit to rule it unconstitutional. Then we’ll be back to Square One.
Can’t we get the Ninth Circuit ruled unconstitutional?
They might even be wacky enough to do it themselves.