| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2006 07:47:45 AM |
| Object: |
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Interesting comparison
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of all
the circuit courts
They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
"conservative" of all the circut courts
Here is the most recent comparison
_______________________________
6TH CIRCUIT
Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
________________________________
Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading the
choir.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William Akridge's
lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when
corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to allow a gay inmate to
lead a choir at religious services.
In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio's Madison
Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge was
approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant
services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing music
at the services, as long as the inmates did not play "pagan music."
The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him
because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain responded, "I
didn't know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that is
reason enough for you not to...lead the band."
The inmate filed a complaint with state correctional officials, launching
an investigation. The deputy prison warden told Akridge to give the inmate
the opportunity to be one of the choir directors. The chaplain refused and
was subsequently fined two days' pay. He then voluntarily transferred to
another prison.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of the
corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies outweighed
any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights. (Akridge v. Wilkinson)
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
______________________________________
9TH CIRCUIT
Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
Nevada Oregon Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:
* District Court of Guam
* District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
____________________________________
Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials who
barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v. Dept. of
Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County Department of Social
Services did not violate the constitutional rights of an employee by
ordering him to stop displaying religious messages in his workspace and
using a conference room for group prayer sessions.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that
department officials were justified in barring Daniel Berry from promoting
his religious beliefs while in his official capacity. The 9th Circuit said
Tehama officials' "need to avoid possible violations" of the First
Amendment principle of church-state separation "outweighs the restriction's
curtailment of Mr. Berry's religious speech on the job."
Berry brought his lawsuit against Tehama county officials in 2002. He
argued that county officials barred him from sharing his religious beliefs
with clients, ordered him to remove a "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign from his
cubicle and told him to keep his Bible inside of his desk. He argued that
all of the actions taken against him by the department amounted to
religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Tehama County officials did not violate any
of Berry's constitutional rights.
The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from such
discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display religious items,
except in areas where a client might presume government endorsement of
religion. Staff members also were allowed to conduct prayer meetings in the
break room or outside, but were prohibited from doing so in the conference
room.
All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th Circuit,
and were necessary to ensure the department did not run afoul of the
separation of church and state.
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
10 Jun 2006 11:25:47 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net> wrote in message
news:keri825p398p2guaaik17nccs1uqgkabri@4ax.com...
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Interesting comparison
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of all
the circuit courts
They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
"conservative" of all the circut courts
Here is the most recent comparison
_______________________________
6TH CIRCUIT
Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
________________________________
Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading the
choir.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William Akridge's
lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when
corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to allow a gay inmate
to
lead a choir at religious services.
In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio's Madison
Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge was
approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant
services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing music
at the services, as long as the inmates did not play "pagan music."
The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him
because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain responded,
"I
didn't know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that is
reason enough for you not to...lead the band."
The inmate filed a complaint with state correctional officials, launching
an investigation. The deputy prison warden told Akridge to give the inmate
the opportunity to be one of the choir directors. The chaplain refused and
was subsequently fined two days' pay. He then voluntarily transferred to
another prison.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of the
corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies outweighed
any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights. (Akridge v.
Wilkinson)
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
______________________________________
9TH CIRCUIT
Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
Nevada Oregon Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:
* District Court of Guam
* District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
____________________________________
Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials who
barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v. Dept. of
Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County Department of Social
Services did not violate the constitutional rights of an employee by
ordering him to stop displaying religious messages in his workspace and
using a conference room for group prayer sessions.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that
department officials were justified in barring Daniel Berry from promoting
his religious beliefs while in his official capacity. The 9th Circuit said
Tehama officials' "need to avoid possible violations" of the First
Amendment principle of church-state separation "outweighs the
restriction's
curtailment of Mr. Berry's religious speech on the job."
Berry brought his lawsuit against Tehama county officials in 2002. He
argued that county officials barred him from sharing his religious beliefs
with clients, ordered him to remove a "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign from his
cubicle and told him to keep his Bible inside of his desk. He argued that
all of the actions taken against him by the department amounted to
religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Tehama County officials did not violate any
of Berry's constitutional rights.
The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from such
discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display religious items,
except in areas where a client might presume government endorsement of
religion. Staff members also were allowed to conduct prayer meetings in
the
break room or outside, but were prohibited from doing so in the conference
room.
All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th
Circuit,
and were necessary to ensure the department did not run afoul of the
separation of church and state.
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
Pardon me Jim, but both of these judicial cites depicts liberal court action
against conservative beliefs. One cite runs contrary to the view that the
court is conservative, and the other cite reinforces the view that the court
is liberal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SueDoeCyAnts" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
16 Jun 2006 06:01:33 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:eeydnUr4bPwXbxfZnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@ez2.net:
<buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net> wrote in message
news:keri825p398p2guaaik17nccs1uqgkabri@4ax.com...
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Interesting comparison
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of
all the circuit courts
They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
"conservative" of all the circut courts
Here is the most recent comparison
_______________________________
6TH CIRCUIT
Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
________________________________
Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading
the choir.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William
Akridge's lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were
violated when corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to
allow a gay inmate to lead a choir at religious services.
[---snip---]
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of
the corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies
outweighed any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights.
(Akridge v. Wilkinson)
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22
(142) ______________________________________
9TH CIRCUIT
Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
Nevada Oregon Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial
courts:
* District Court of Guam
* District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
____________________________________
Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials
who barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v.
Dept. of Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County
Department of Social Services did not violate the constitutional
rights of an employee by ordering him to stop displaying religious
messages in his workspace and using a conference room for group
prayer sessions.
[--snip--]
The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from
such discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display
religious items, except in areas where a client might presume
government endorsement of religion. Staff members also were allowed
to conduct prayer meetings in the break room or outside, but were
prohibited from doing so in the conference room.
All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th
Circuit, and were necessary to ensure the department did not run
afoul of the separation of church and state. AU Bulletin Church &
State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
Pardon me Jim, but both of these judicial cites depicts liberal court
action against conservative beliefs. One cite runs contrary to the
view that the court is conservative, and the other cite reinforces the
view that the court is liberal.
That's one distorted ideation of conservatism
you've got there partner.
It is a liberal court which decided that
state non-discrimination laws should be upheld?
It is a conservative view that a Federal Court should overturn
State Law which is applied equally, and was enacted as a means
to further a valid cause (non-discrimination)?
Or is it a conservative belief that non-discrimination is not
a valid goal of state government?
Lincoln is rolling over in his grave again...
This isn't conservatism,
it's right-sided activism,
and there is a big difference between the two,
no matter what tripe they are claiming is filet mignon
under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
12 Jun 2006 06:45:07 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net> wrote in message
:|news:keri825p398p2guaaik17nccs1uqgkabri@4ax.com...
:|> 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
:|>
:|>
:|> Interesting comparison
:|>
:|> 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
:|>
:|> Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of all
:|> the circuit courts
:|>
:|> They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
:|> "conservative" of all the circut courts
:|>
:|> Here is the most recent comparison
:|> _______________________________
:|> 6TH CIRCUIT
:|> Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
:|> ________________________________
:|>
:|>
:|> Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
:|>
:|> A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
:|> reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading the
:|> choir.
:|>
:|> The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William Akridge's
:|> lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when
:|> corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to allow a gay inmate
:|> to
:|> lead a choir at religious services.
:|>
:|> In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio's Madison
:|> Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge was
:|> approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant
:|> services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing music
:|> at the services, as long as the inmates did not play "pagan music."
:|> The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him
:|> because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain responded,
:|> "I
:|> didn't know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that is
:|> reason enough for you not to...lead the band."
:|>
:|> The inmate filed a complaint with state correctional officials, launching
:|> an investigation. The deputy prison warden told Akridge to give the inmate
:|> the opportunity to be one of the choir directors. The chaplain refused and
:|> was subsequently fined two days' pay. He then voluntarily transferred to
:|> another prison.
:|>
:|> A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of the
:|> corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies outweighed
:|> any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights. (Akridge v.
:|> Wilkinson)
:|> AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
:|> ______________________________________
:|> 9TH CIRCUIT
:|> Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
:|> Nevada Oregon Washington
:|>
:|> It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:
:|> * District Court of Guam
:|> * District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
:|> ____________________________________
:|>
:|>
:|> Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
:|>
:|> A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials who
:|> barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
:|>
:|> On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v. Dept. of
:|> Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County Department of Social
:|> Services did not violate the constitutional rights of an employee by
:|> ordering him to stop displaying religious messages in his workspace and
:|> using a conference room for group prayer sessions.
:|>
:|> A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that
:|> department officials were justified in barring Daniel Berry from promoting
:|> his religious beliefs while in his official capacity. The 9th Circuit said
:|> Tehama officials' "need to avoid possible violations" of the First
:|> Amendment principle of church-state separation "outweighs the
:|> restriction's
:|> curtailment of Mr. Berry's religious speech on the job."
:|>
:|> Berry brought his lawsuit against Tehama county officials in 2002. He
:|> argued that county officials barred him from sharing his religious beliefs
:|> with clients, ordered him to remove a "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign from his
:|> cubicle and told him to keep his Bible inside of his desk. He argued that
:|> all of the actions taken against him by the department amounted to
:|> religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
:|> The 9th Circuit concluded that Tehama County officials did not violate any
:|> of Berry's constitutional rights.
:|>
:|> The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
:|> discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from such
:|> discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display religious items,
:|> except in areas where a client might presume government endorsement of
:|> religion. Staff members also were allowed to conduct prayer meetings in
:|> the
:|> break room or outside, but were prohibited from doing so in the conference
:|> room.
:|>
:|> All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th
:|> Circuit,
:|> and were necessary to ensure the department did not run afoul of the
:|> separation of church and state.
:|> AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
:|>
:|>
:|
:|Pardon me Jim, but both of these judicial cites depicts liberal court action
:|against conservative beliefs. One cite runs contrary to the view that the
:|court is conservative, and the other cite reinforces the view that the court
:|is liberal.
Pardon jeffy
I picked the title ( I was actually thinking of you as I composed it)
because I knew it would get your attention, which it did.
It also allows me to expand on the theme stated in the title
There are a lot of lessons that can be gathered from this.
Isn't that neat?
***************************************************************
APRIL 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
----------------------------------------------
ACLU v. Mercer County, Kentucky (04/24/06 - No. 03-5142)
Petition for rehearing is denied, both en banc and by the original panel,
in a case concerning the Establishment Clause where the issues raised in
the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and
decision.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf
*********************************************************************
APRIL 13, 2006
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------
Planned Parenthood v. Taft (04/13/06 - No. 04-4371)
A preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of an Ohio statute
prohibiting the off-label use of an abortion drug is vacated in part
insofar as it prohibits constitutional applications of the law where,
although the district court erred in holding that every state which
regulates abortion must include a health or life exception, there was no
abuse of discretion in a finding that plaintiffs established a strong
likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their challenge. (Amended
opinion)
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/044371p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/044371p.pdf [PDF File]
**********************************************************************************
MARCH 17, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee v. Bredesen (03/17/06 - No.
04-6393)
A government-crafted message disseminated by private volunteers does not
create a "forum" for speech that must be viewpoint neutral, at least with
respect to a state-produced specialty license plate with a "Choose Life"
logotype. A judgment invalidating a law authorizing issuance of a specialty
license plate with a "Choose Life" logotype on First Amendment grounds is
reversed.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/046393p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/046393p.pdf [PDF File]
*************************************************************************
DECEMBER 20, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mercer County (12/20/05 - No. 03-5142)
Summary judgment in favor of county defendant in a First Amendment
Establishment Clause challenge to its courthouse display containing the Ten
Commandments is affirmed where the predominant purpose of the display is
secular and the display does not endorse religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035142p.pdf [PDF File]
*******************************************************************************
AND ONE OF THE MORE FAMOUS ONES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 2000
SIMMONS-HARRIS v. ZELMAN (12/11/00 - No. 00-3055, 3060, 3063)
Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program school voucher program violates the
Establishment Clause because it does not permit private citizens to direct
government aid freely, but rather restricts choice to religious
institutions and spaces with only a few alternative possibilities.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
***********************************************************************
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
---------------------------------------------------
Smelt v. County of Orange (05/05/06 - No. 05-56040)
In a case brought by two California men who wished to marry each other,
orders abstaining as to constitutional claims attacking state laws and
ruling adversely to plaintiffs on federal constitutional claims are
affirmed and reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked standing for their
attacks on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the district court
properly abstained from deciding their constitutional attacks on state laws
precluding them from obtaining a marriage license.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0556040p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0556040p.pdf
****************************************************************************
Berry v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (05/01/06 - No. 04-15566)
Summary judgment for defendant-public employer on constitutional and Title
VII claims brought by an employee is affirmed where the public employer's
interests in avoiding violations of the Establishment Clause and in
maintaining a conference room as a nonpublic forum outweighed the resulting
limitations on plaintiff's free exercise of his religion at work.
Additionally, defendant was not required to further accommodate plaintiff's
religious views under Title VII.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0415566p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0415566p.pdf
*******************************************************************************
FEBRUARY 21 - 24, 2006
-----------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
----------------------------------------------------
Gathright v. City of Portland (02/24/06 - No. 04-35402, 05-35506)
A permanent injunction against a municipality is vacated where, although
the district court properly concluded that defendant infringed plaintiff's
First Amendment right to preach by ejecting him from government property, a
remand for reconsideration of the injunction was warranted since defendant
had repealed and replaced a challenged ordinance.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435402p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435402p.pdf [PDF File]
**********************************************************************************
JANUARY 31, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales (01/31/06 - No. 04-16621)
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional since it: 1)
lacks the health exception required of all abortion regulations in the
absence of a medical consensus, that the prohibited procedure is never
necessary to preserve women's health; 2) imposes an undue burden on a
woman's right to choose a previability abortion; and 3) is impermissibly
vague. The appropriate remedy for the serious constitutional flaws in the
Act is enjoining the enforcement of the statute in its entirety.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0416621p.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0416621p.pdf [PDF File]
**************************************************************************
AND ONE OF ITS MORE FAMOUS ONES
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423) The addition of the words
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (via 1954 federal
statute), and a school district policy of teacher-led daily recitation of
the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
13 Jun 2006 10:29:02 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:otkq82h8o5c9tuift5fuqc0n78fdtlhnb0@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net> wrote in message
:|news:keri825p398p2guaaik17nccs1uqgkabri@4ax.com...
:|> 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
:|>
:|>
:|> Interesting comparison
:|>
:|> 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
:|>
:|> Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of
all
:|> the circuit courts
:|>
:|> They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
:|> "conservative" of all the circut courts
:|>
:|> Here is the most recent comparison
:|> _______________________________
:|> 6TH CIRCUIT
:|> Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
:|> ________________________________
:|>
:|>
:|> Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
:|>
:|> A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
:|> reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading
the
:|> choir.
:|>
:|> The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William
Akridge's
:|> lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when
:|> corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to allow a gay
inmate
:|> to
:|> lead a choir at religious services.
:|>
:|> In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio's Madison
:|> Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge
was
:|> approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant
:|> services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing
music
:|> at the services, as long as the inmates did not play "pagan music."
:|> The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him
:|> because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain
responded,
:|> "I
:|> didn't know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that
is
:|> reason enough for you not to...lead the band."
:|>
:|> The inmate filed a complaint with state correctional officials,
launching
:|> an investigation. The deputy prison warden told Akridge to give the
inmate
:|> the opportunity to be one of the choir directors. The chaplain refused
and
:|> was subsequently fined two days' pay. He then voluntarily transferred
to
:|> another prison.
:|>
:|> A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of the
:|> corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies
outweighed
:|> any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights. (Akridge v.
:|> Wilkinson)
:|> AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22
(142)
:|> ______________________________________
:|> 9TH CIRCUIT
:|> Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
:|> Nevada Oregon Washington
:|>
:|> It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial
courts:
:|> * District Court of Guam
:|> * District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
:|> ____________________________________
:|>
:|>
:|> Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
:|>
:|> A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials who
:|> barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
:|>
:|> On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v.
Dept. of
:|> Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County Department of
Social
:|> Services did not violate the constitutional rights of an employee by
:|> ordering him to stop displaying religious messages in his workspace
and
:|> using a conference room for group prayer sessions.
:|>
:|> A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling
that
:|> department officials were justified in barring Daniel Berry from
promoting
:|> his religious beliefs while in his official capacity. The 9th Circuit
said
:|> Tehama officials' "need to avoid possible violations" of the First
:|> Amendment principle of church-state separation "outweighs the
:|> restriction's
:|> curtailment of Mr. Berry's religious speech on the job."
:|>
:|> Berry brought his lawsuit against Tehama county officials in 2002. He
:|> argued that county officials barred him from sharing his religious
beliefs
:|> with clients, ordered him to remove a "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign from
his
:|> cubicle and told him to keep his Bible inside of his desk. He argued
that
:|> all of the actions taken against him by the department amounted to
:|> religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
:|> The 9th Circuit concluded that Tehama County officials did not violate
any
:|> of Berry's constitutional rights.
:|>
:|> The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
:|> discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from such
:|> discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display religious
items,
:|> except in areas where a client might presume government endorsement of
:|> religion. Staff members also were allowed to conduct prayer meetings
in
:|> the
:|> break room or outside, but were prohibited from doing so in the
conference
:|> room.
:|>
:|> All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th
:|> Circuit,
:|> and were necessary to ensure the department did not run afoul of the
:|> separation of church and state.
:|> AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22
(142)
:|>
:|>
:|
:|Pardon me Jim, but both of these judicial cites depicts liberal court
action
:|against conservative beliefs. One cite runs contrary to the view that
the
:|court is conservative, and the other cite reinforces the view that the
court
:|is liberal.
Pardon jeffy
I picked the title ( I was actually thinking of you as I composed it)
because I knew it would get your attention, which it did.
It also allows me to expand on the theme stated in the title
There are a lot of lessons that can be gathered from this.
Isn't that neat?
But, you open with differences, but expound on the similarities. Then, you
add 10k of ***** that is entirely off topic. The end result is that the most
conservative court in the land is just as liberal as the most liberal court
in the land. I'm not certain that the 6th is the most conservative, but you
made the assertion so I simply ran with it. There is no doubt that the 9th
is the most liberal, even with the occasional decisions it renders that are
actually right.
<snip 10K>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
11 Jun 2006 03:58:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:25:47 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in article <eeydnUr4bPwXbxfZnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@ez2.net>):
<buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net> wrote in message
news:keri825p398p2guaaik17nccs1uqgkabri@4ax.com...
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Interesting comparison
6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit
Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of all
the circuit courts
They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
"conservative" of all the circut courts
Here is the most recent comparison
_______________________________
6TH CIRCUIT
Kentucky Michigan Ohio Tennessee
________________________________
Ohio Prison Chaplain Loses Gay Choir Leader Fight
A federal appeals court has supported Ohio correctional officials'
reprimand of a prison chaplain who barred a gay inmate from leading the
choir.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chaplain William Akridge's
lawsuit that claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when
corrections officials reprimanded him for refusing to allow a gay inmate
to
lead a choir at religious services.
In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio's Madison
Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge was
approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant
services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing music
at the services, as long as the inmates did not play "pagan music."
The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him
because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain responded,
"I
didn't know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that is
reason enough for you not to...lead the band."
The inmate filed a complaint with state correctional officials, launching
an investigation. The deputy prison warden told Akridge to give the inmate
the opportunity to be one of the choir directors. The chaplain refused and
was subsequently fined two days' pay. He then voluntarily transferred to
another prison.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit found that the interests of the
corrections officials in upholding non-discrimination policies outweighed
any restrictions on Akridge's constitutional rights. (Akridge v.
Wilkinson)
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
______________________________________
9TH CIRCUIT
Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Idaho Montana
Nevada Oregon Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:
* District Court of Guam
* District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
____________________________________
Government Worker Can't Proselytize, Court Rules
A federal appeals court has sided with California county officials who
barred an employee from proselytizing on the job.
On May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Berry v. Dept. of
Social Services, that officials of the Tehama County Department of Social
Services did not violate the constitutional rights of an employee by
ordering him to stop displaying religious messages in his workspace and
using a conference room for group prayer sessions.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that
department officials were justified in barring Daniel Berry from promoting
his religious beliefs while in his official capacity. The 9th Circuit said
Tehama officials' "need to avoid possible violations" of the First
Amendment principle of church-state separation "outweighs the
restriction's
curtailment of Mr. Berry's religious speech on the job."
Berry brought his lawsuit against Tehama county officials in 2002. He
argued that county officials barred him from sharing his religious beliefs
with clients, ordered him to remove a "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign from his
cubicle and told him to keep his Bible inside of his desk. He argued that
all of the actions taken against him by the department amounted to
religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Tehama County officials did not violate any
of Berry's constitutional rights.
The court found that the department did not bar its employees from
discussing religion among themselves, only that they refrain from such
discussion with clients. Employees are allowed to display religious items,
except in areas where a client might presume government endorsement of
religion. Staff members also were allowed to conduct prayer meetings in
the
break room or outside, but were prohibited from doing so in the conference
room.
All of the county's policies were reasonable, according to the 9th
Circuit,
and were necessary to ensure the department did not run afoul of the
separation of church and state.
AU Bulletin Church & State, Volume 59, Number 6, June 2006, p 22 (142)
Pardon me Jim, but both of these judicial cites depicts liberal court action
against conservative beliefs. One cite runs contrary to the view that the
court is conservative, and the other cite reinforces the view that the court
is liberal.
CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a
barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws
of nature.
- George Bernard Shaw
Caesar and Cleopatra (1898)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 6th Circuit vs 9th Circuit |
12 Jun 2006 09:49:33 AM |
|
|
"editor@netpath.net" <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nosdpam.net wrote:
:|> Some like to point out that the 9th Circuit is the most "liberal" of all
:|> the circuit courts
:|> They don't like to point out that the 6th Circuit is the most
:|> "conservative" of all the circut courts
:|
:| Either way, what does it tell you when the appeals-level federal
:|courts are so ideologically split? It tells you that they are
:|ILLEGITIMATE - just divining the personal politics of the judges on
:|them into law in their several-state jurisdictions!
Well, that is one purpose of this. To find out if, in the area of religion
for example, one or the other seems to rule heavily in one direction or
the other, i.e. accommodation or separation from 2000 to the present.
One must remember the initial rulings by federal circuit courets are done
by 3 judge panels. More times than not that is as far as it goes. It
doesn't get appeal to the full circuit court or the USSC.
Becasue one circuit might have a few more Republican or Democrat appointed
judges than the other does not necessarily reflect the make up of any
particuar 3 judg panel.
Finaly in the famous or infamous, depending on your point of view, Newdow
'under God" ruling by the 9th Circuit the judge who wrote the opinion was
appointed by a Republican.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
