7/1/05 Appeal deserved to fail
Appeal deserved to fail
The refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Great Falls prayer case was predictable reaffirmation of sound constitutional principle. It is regrettable that the town wasted taxpayers' money in a symbolic but futile legal battle.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Chester County town's appeal of a lower court decision that invoking the name "Jesus Christ" in prayers at Town Council meetings improperly favored one faith over others. This was the town's final avenue of appeal after losing at every juncture of the case.
The case was born in 2001 when Darla Wynne, a Great Falls resident and Wiccan high priestess, sued the town for using the name of Jesus in its council prayers. Wynne contended that council members refused to use nonsectarian prayers or to allow those of other faiths to lead the prayers.
Her view prevailed. A federal court ruled against the town in August 2003. A three-judge appeals panel ruled against Great Falls in July 2004. In November 2004, a unanimous ruling by another three judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ended any chance that the appeal would be heard by the full appeals court. And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court made it final.
The conclusion to the case, however, had been obvious from the start. Town fathers simply chose to ignore it.
Human obstinacy is understandable. Squandering public money on a hopeless cause isn't.
We also fault town leaders -- and state Attorney General Henry McMaster, who waded into the case and should have known better -- for failing to acknowledge the legitimate legal position of the courts. The council's use of Christian prayers to open its meetings was an unconstitutional act. It deliberately excluded those of other faiths, abandoning religious neutrality as required of governmental bodies by the U.S. Constitution.
Great Falls deserved to lose this case. Too bad taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.
IN SUMMARY
Outcome of Great Falls appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in prayer case was predictable.
The refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Great Falls prayer case was predictable reaffirmation of sound constitutional principle. It is regrettable that the town wasted taxpayers' money in a symbolic but futile legal battle.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Chester County town's appeal of a lower court decision that invoking the name "Jesus Christ" in prayers at Town Council meetings improperly favored one faith over others. This was the town's final avenue of appeal after losing at every juncture of the case.
The case was born in 2001 when Darla Wynne, a Great Falls resident and Wiccan high priestess, sued the town for using the name of Jesus in its council prayers. Wynne contended that council members refused to use nonsectarian prayers or to allow those of other faiths to lead the prayers.
Her view prevailed. A federal court ruled against the town in August 2003. A three-judge appeals panel ruled against Great Falls in July 2004. In November 2004, a unanimous ruling by another three judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ended any chance that the appeal would be heard by the full appeals court. And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court made it final.
The conclusion to the case, however, had been obvious from the start. Town fathers simply chose to ignore it.
Human obstinacy is understandable. Squandering public money on a hopeless cause isn't.
We also fault town leaders -- and state Attorney General Henry McMaster, who waded into the case and should have known better -- for failing to acknowledge the legitimate legal position of the courts. The council's use of Christian prayers to open its meetings was an unconstitutional act. It deliberately excluded those of other faiths, abandoning religious neutrality as required of governmental bodies by the U.S. Constitution.
Great Falls deserved to lose this case. Too bad taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.
IN SUMMARY
Outcome of Great Falls appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in prayer case was predictable.
posted by Aestrea Raven at Friday, July 01, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home