Supreme Court on a Shoestring, Homeless Man Takes On TX, Religious Display

[Rose Siding]

AUSTIN -- Comes now the plaintiff, surely one of the most unusual to get a case to the highest court in the land. He's homeless; he's destitute; and his law license is suspended.

But never mind all that, Thomas Van Orden admonishes anyone who gets stuck on the fact that he sleeps nightly in a tent in a wooded area; showers and washes his clothes irregularly; hangs out in a law library; and survives on food stamps and the good graces of acquaintances who give him a few bucks from time to time.
...
On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear Van Orden v. Perry, a case born out of Van Orden's daily meanderings around the Texas state Capitol grounds. There, between the Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, stands a 6-foot-tall, 3-foot-wide pink granite monument etched with the commandments and Christian and Jewish symbols. Carved in the shape of stone tablets, the monument was presented to "the Youth and the People of Texas" in 1961 by the Texas chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

One day in 2002, as Van Orden walked to the State Law Library in the Supreme Court building, where he seeks peaceful and dry refuge daily, the lawsuit dawned on him. Somebody had to challenge the state of Texas for what he believed to be a governmental endorsement of Judeo-Christian doctrine and a violation of the separation between church and state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40461-2005Feb20.html

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. Interesting, I dont think he has a case though...

Alot of times people with these kinds of cases cite the 1st amendment and seperation of church and state.

However the 1st amendment doesnt specificall call for the seperation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the US Congress isnt making the law that put that statue thier then it isnt a 1st amendment violation.

[harpboy_ak]

2. he *does* have a case, a very good one.

you must not know anything about the law. there have been numerous cases on this topic, and those that want to have such things on government property always lose. the supreme court continues to say that such displays are a violation of the establishment cause. it's a no-brainer for anyone who has taken a basic course in constitutional law and can write a basic legal brief and fill out a few forms.

i'm sure that others who want to do the research can cite the cases.

[Jack_DeLeon]

5. Well IMO this is a no brainer...

for anyone who can read the consition.

The 1st amendment is pretty specific when it says "Congress," with a capital 'C', that refers to the United States Congress.

Why does the Supreme Court say it means a completely different thing, who knows, Supreme Court judges are human like everyone else with thier own biases and whatnot.

[tkmorris]

6. This is ridiculous

Come on Jack. Seriously.

The firstdment has not been interpreted that way for a long long time, if ever. Can states mandate prayer in schools? No, they can't. Why? Because they receive funding from the United States government and the USSC has interpreted the first amendment to preclude any governmental sponsorship of religion or religious activities.

Of course that may change at any time, as the individual members who make up the USSC change. For the moment though it would appear that any case involving a governmental sponsorship of religion will face a court which still takes a dim view of that, if only just barely.

To say the man has "no case" is just absurd. I've read your stuff before and I know you're no fool, and I am certain that you know this man has a very respectable chance to win this case. So what are you doing?

[Jamastiene]

21. Uh, they do it here in NC (eom)

[Mike Niendorff]

9. It is a no-brainer (see : 14th Amendment)

Consider your argument for a moment:

If the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal Congress -- but not to any of the state governments -- then it would be perfectly acceptable (by your reasoning) for states to completely eliminate freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and all the other rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Think about that.

Now, ask yourself: why has the Supreme Court not allowed the states to do this?

The answer can be found in literally *any* Constitutional law case dealing with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. What you're looking for is the following phrase : "as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment". This refers to a Constitutional Law doctrine called "incorporation", which, in turn, refers to the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (specifically: the "life, liberty or property" language that directly precedes the words "due process"). Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the question came up as to just what "liberty" was covered by that amendment's language, as it related to state-level action and the amendment's guarantee of "due process". The Court went with Constitutional history and the Bill of Rights as its guide to what the Constitutional definition of "liberty" should be construed to be, and from there this developed into the doctrine of Incorporation.

Anyway, that's a fairly longwinded answer to your question, but it's an important one. Be thankful that the Court has held that the word "liberty" actually means what it says.


MDN

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Even if the Bill of Rights itself were repealed...

we would still have those rights.

As per the 9th amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Even if the 9th amendment and the whole bill of rights were gone people still have rights.

Even people who are being oppressed by thier government still have rights because the government doesnt give any rights.

All that being said even if you extend the meaning of "Congress" to include state Governments, IMO it would definately not include local governments.

Its my opinion that local governments should be able to decide for themselves what if any monuments they will put up.

[depakid]

24. Then you need to be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment

That's the way to address the issue.

Playing political/religious football with the integrity of the law is bad news all around- for reasons that extend WAY beyond the exigencies of this case.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. No, I think I'm following the consitution to the word...

to me it appears that on far too many issues people have been twisting what the consitution says to get around what it limits, and what it doesnt limit.

[depakid]

26. Well, Niendorff spelled it out pretty clearly

and if you're unwilling to accept that the Bill of Rights applies to the States (and all local entities acting under color of state law) via the 14th Amendment, then there's no sense in arguing over it.

More or less, this is what we fought the Civil War over- and until recently, most of us (Ed Meese in the 80's notwithstanding) thought that the issue was settled.

[NYC Liberal]

3. Yes, it does apply to states, through the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

[Jack_DeLeon]

4. Please explain...

What privileges or immunities do US citizens get that give them freedom from religion?

[Mike Niendorff]

13. wrong clause.

The "privileges and immunities" clause was effectively gutted by the early post-civil-war court (as I'm pretty sure you're already well aware, given the way you've quickly tried to dodge off of the "liberty" question and onto "P&I"). Anyway, as previously stated, the question of incorporation that is in play here arises under the "liberty" and "due process" language of the amendment. The relevent element for incorporation here is the specific language of the First Amendment prohibiting "an establishment of religion". With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that language became applicable to the states.

The only real question left, then, is what constitutes "an establishment of religion?".

There's a whole body of case law on this (and it would take a book or three to begin to explain it all), but the upshot is this: the state may not put its thumb on the scales when it comes to matters of religion, either by favoring one religion or by offering it benefits that are not equally offered to all other religious groups/organizations (see: school access cases). The state is simply to be a neutral actor in matters of religion.

When public property is set aside for religious endorsements, that's where the problem arises.

Obviously, there is no right to "freedom from religion". There is simply a Constitutional guarantee that the government stays out of the religion business. Period.

It's really quite simple.


MDN

[Boosterman]

7. I see where your going

But I dont think the 14th applies here. Now with that said the bum will probably win his case.

[Senior citizen]

11. I agree he should win. That said, SCOTUS might have

taken the case because they think they can overturn precedent to rule so as to help Bush* merge church and state. Still, they'll have a run for their money because the dude does have a law degree, and just because he's a lawyer (license suspended, but has the degree) doesn't mean he's stupid--in fact it doesn't even mean he's a bum--although some people do have that opinion of lawyers in general.

As for the homeless part, all it means is he has low overhead and nothing to lose. Most law firms can't afford to take on the government, and he can. Unfortunately, we have to keep in mind the old gypsy curse the Collier brother cited in their book, "Votescam:"
--May you have a court case where you know you're right.

From my perspective it is one righteous brother up against a bunch of corrupt, partisan, sleazy bums (the Honorable Justice Stevens excepted, of course).

[Barad Simith]

8. "On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear Van Orden v. Perry"

I see your point. However, the Supreme Court has chosen to hear it. The court would have rejected it if the plaintiff didn't have a case.

[sandnsea]

16. He probably doesn't, but not for that reason

IIRC, the statue is in an area with other historic statuary and will likely not fall under establishment of religion because of the historic nature and overall setting of the statue.

Otherwise, putting the Ten Commandments on government property, especially a courthouse, is advocating one religon over another. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it's a no no.

[0rganism]

10. Not the person I'd choose to have representing the secular position

More likely than not, the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case in order to establish a more relaxed precedent than current caselaw. With homeless Orden as the self-representing plaintiff, this is going to be a slam dunk for the GodSquad in Scalia's court. Doesn't take a genius to see that this can kill the "Lemon test" dead if the TX AGs carry the day. I wouldn't be surprised if Orden was put up to this, and collects some payback within the first month after Scalia re-writes church-state separation.

Fuck it all. The Christian Reconstructionists just got another easy win.

[Senior citizen]

14. No way.

You're probably right about the SCOTUS motive in granting certiorari, but not about Orden. If he could be bought, he wouldn't be homeless-he'd be making the big bucks in some corporate law firm.

In our society, people with principles end up unemployed, while those without principles get rewarded. There's an old children's story about a king who was deathly ill and none of the doctors could cure him, so he sent for his wise men and they told him that he could only be cured if he wore the shirt of an honest man. So he sent his minions out to scour his kingdom, but no matter how hard they searched they were unable to find a single honest man until one day they heard about a hermit who lived in a cave on a mountain top, and who had a reputation for absolute honesty. They climbed the mountain, and they found the hermit, but as it turned out, he didn't happen to own a shirt. Some of those old children's stories had morals--which is more than I can say for most of the SCOTUS justices.

[0rganism]

18. Being homeless doesn't make a man unbribeable

Sure, he's got nothing to lose now and everything to gain if he throws the case.

There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people spread across this once-great nation. Not all of them are homeless because of their unimpeachable ethical standards -- although one might get that idea if one based her worldview solely on children's stories.

"Texas State Bar records show Van Orden's law license was suspended in 1985, in 1989 and in 1999 -- mostly for taking money from clients for work that he did not perform and for failing to pay fees ordered in disciplinary judgments."

Obviously Orden is a person of complete integrity. :crazy:

[Senior citizen]

19. No, but being unbribeable can make one homeless.

Which one wouldn't understand if she based her worldview solely on capitalist stereotypes.

I detest Ward Churchill, but when he spoke of the "little Eichmanns," he was describing the people who make a living by just doing their job and not concerning themselves with who is being harmed by what they do.

You might be surprised at just how many homeless people are homeless because of their unimpeachable ethical standards. But you won't find that out so long as you're one of the "little Eichmanns."

Do you know what a whistleblower is? Do you know what a blacklist is? Have you bothered to read, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman?"

This is a fascist country, and more commonly than you might wish to know, a person is either part of the problem or they're homeless.

On edit: I happen to know of many cases of attorneys who should have been disbarred but weren't. If you look at the way Clinton was treated, compared to the way Bush is treated, you'll see that there is a double standard in this country. Our justice system, for example, is biased towards the rich, and if you look at cases that are similar in all respects except for the income of the defendants, you'll find that the lower the income, the harsher the punishment. Many corporate attorneys may have done much worse things than Orden without the bar association feeling any need to penalize them, but if someone isn't connected, isn't a good old boy, isn't a conservative, and isn't rich, the smallest misdeed can result in severe penalties.

[LiberallyInclined]

15. yup. look for lots more monuments to the judeo-christian god...

coming to public property near you!

[Senior citizen]

17. I seriously doubt it.

This guy hangs out at the law library, and SCOTUS would have to go against all established case law and precedent, which he will cite, even if it takes up several volumes. Remember, he has absolutely nothing better to do, and he's probably smarter than all of them put together.

Not that the SCOTUS won't ignore precedent when they feel like it, as they did in 2000, but when they do, they won't sign their names to their decision or allow it to set new precedent. So even if they manage to rule against him, public property, or what's left of it anyway, will be no more endangered than before.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

23. judeo-christian-islamic God....same God, as most forget

[readmoreoften]

12. Okay a question for Austinites....

Is this LESLIE???? I know a few Austin homeless geniuses... Eric who hangs out at Spiderhouse being one... and then there's 'Leslie'? (Whose birth name is not Leslie, so who knows if this is him....)

I'm up in NYC, but this made me miss ol' A-town!

[moobu2]

20. The state will win this case unfortunately.

The Ten Commandment monument, in this case, is accompanied by other monuments of an historical nature, unlike the Monument in the Alabama (Judge Moore) case where Judge Moore, basically, set the ten commandment monument up to be a Christian shrine.

Personally, I would like to see a total strict separation
but even the Supreme Court building is adorned with the ten commandments.