Justice O'Connor hears appeal
O'Connor sits on three-judge panel hearing prayer case
BY EMILY BATTLE
Date published: 3/20/2008
BY EMILY BATTLE
RICHMOND-- Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told lawyers arguing on behalf of Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner yesterday that the city's nonsectarian prayer policy "seems perfectly reasonable."
O'Connor was part of a three-judge panel who heard Turner's appeal to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The judges' reactions to Turner's case did not differ greatly from those of the federal district court judge whose opinion Turner's lawyers want them to overturn.
"When you give the prayer as a county council member, you're authorized by the council to speak for the council under the conditions set by the council," said Judge Dennis W. Shedd, repeating the district court judge's sentiment that Turner's lawyers had "a pretty big hill to climb."
Throughout this case, Turner's lawyers have tried to argue that the prayers that open City Council meetings are not government speech, and therefore the constitution's protections of free speech prohibit the government from dictating their content.
But U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer ruled in 2006 that the prayers are government speech, and that the city's nonsectarian policy is actually required to keep it from violating the establishment clause of the constitution, which prohibits a government from establishing a religion, or showing preference of one religion over another.
Johan Conrod, speaking on Turner's behalf, was interrupted several times as he tried to argue that prayers before council meetings aren't government speech.
The three judges challenged him repeatedly to find a federal case where legislative prayers had not been treated as government speech.
"This is government speech," said Judge Diana Motz. "There is no free expression right."
Conrod also said the city's policy, which states that all opening prayers by council members are to be "nondenominational," is too vague to be effectively enforced.
He pointed out that council members still reference "almighty God" and "Heavenly Father" in their prayers, and said, "The mere use of the word Jesus isn't itself a denominational term. It encompasses many denominations."
Attorney Robert Rolfe, representing the city, told the judges that "every issue in this case has been decided, and there's really nothing left for this court to decide."
His argument was much shorter than Conrod's, and he said after the arguments that he felt good about the city's case.
Date published: 3/20/2008
Most recent reader comments:
OConnor was not unpredictable as a justice if you read
(posted by
GOUSA
, Mar. 20, 2008 1:21 pm)
her opinions. In particular she believed strongly in the stare decis, which is the concept that prior legal opinions should be respected. I never saw a quote attributed to Reagan that he thought O'Connor was his biggest mistake. I'd be surprised if it were true (he may have been disappointed maybe, but not a mistake). Finally, if the original complaint against Turner was "arrogant" then what does this case make Turner? The weight of legal opinion is strictly against him.
Why pray at all?
(posted by
schrodinger
, Mar. 20, 2008 10:51 am)
I've said it before, but what is the purpose of a
prayer to open a secular government meeting?
Why not start with a moment of silence followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance? If it's your desire, you
can pray to yourself in the moment of silence, or
the like-minded can get together in the back before
the meeting to pray aloud. What is it with this need
for public prayer? And especially what is this need
for public Christian prayer?
Sorry
(posted by
MisterBee
, Mar. 20, 2008 9:14 am)
Sorry, Mr Zorro - the Constitution does not say anything about a taxpayer salary while praying. This is government interference with free religious expression. The problem is you can pray to God, whoever you say God is, or Buddha, or Krishna, just dont mention that Jesus guy because He's in your face.
"Justice" O'Connor
(posted by
MisterBee
, Mar. 20, 2008 9:11 am)
"but having O'Connor on the panel sinks him since" she's unpredictable. Reagan said she was his biggest mistake. The democrats like Schumer wanted her to stick around to protect abortion.
This is nothing more than government shutting down a man's free expression of religion. WHether it's on government property or not should not matter. After all, who owns government property? (You can stop laughing now)
Turner, like Don Imus, is on salary
(posted by
MrZorro
, Mar. 20, 2008 9:05 am)
Turner gets a taxpayers' salary when he prays, so it is not "free" speech. It is on somebody else's ticket, not Turner's. Likewise Don Imus got fired because he was paid by the network, and on their ticket. Neither Imus or Turner have the freedom to say whatever they want, in these cases. The government, in Turner's case, and the network, in Imus' case, have not only a right, but a duty to keep the words fair to every listener.
|
Star Directory
