9th Circuit Court to Hear Arguments against San Francisco's Anti-Catholic Resolution

[Dwyer]

Read the entirety of this startling, “Bolshevik-like” Resolution passed unanimously by the San Francisco City Board of Supervisors:

Pdf file of San Francisco City Board of Supervisors Resolution:

thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CatholicLeagueSF-CityofSFResolution.pdf

This San Francisco City Board of Supervisors Resolution is again in the news because the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last month on the separation of church and state case it engendered.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121506.html

More background:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/mar/06032203.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, I see a simple way to circumvent secular laws of countries. Have Marriages / Adoptions etc… final blessings come from the Vatican See. A foreign Country

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Well, you wouldn’t want to meddle in the affairs of the great city.

 

[Digitonomy]

Read the entirety of this startling, “Bolshevik-like” Resolution passed unanimously by the San Francisco City Board of Supervisors:
This San Francisco City Board of Supervisors Resolution is again in the news because the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last month on the separation of church and state case it engendered.

Bolshevik-like - maybe. Certainly the Board of Supervisors showed their ignorance. But since it’s all bluster, no actual actions, it falls within the city’s right to express itself. This is especially true in the wake of the Summum decision. The Ninth Circuit will let it stand, and if it comes to it, the Supreme Court will let it stand.

 

[katy]

Bolshevik-like - maybe. Certainly the Board of Supervisors showed their ignorance. But since it’s all bluster, no actual actions, it falls within the city’s right to express itself. This is especially true in the wake of the Summum decision. The Ninth Circuit will let it stand, and if it comes to it, the Supreme Court will let it stand.

That may be, but if so it still pushes the envelope just a little bit further. Then there is the next step, and the next.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Bolshevik-like - maybe. Certainly the Board of Supervisors showed their ignorance. But since it’s all bluster, no actual actions, it falls within the city’s right to express itself. This is especially true in the wake of the Summum decision. The Ninth Circuit will let it stand, and if it comes to it, the Supreme Court will let it stand.

Don’t be so sure. The 9th Circuit is by far the most overturned court in the land.

ATB

 

[Digitonomy]

Don’t be so sure. The 9th Circuit is by far the most overturned court in the land.ATB

First let’s deal with that last claim. In the last term, the 9th Circuit was indeed overturned more times than the other circuit courts. But as the largest of the circuits, it also had more cases than any of the others. If we simply look at percentages, there were seven other circuit courts with a greater percentage of cases overturned. So out of 14 circuit courts, the 9th Circuit ranked eighth.

Regardless of that, in order for the 9th to be overturned on this case, plaintiffs would have to appeal the 9th Circuit, AND the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear the case (the least likely to occur of the factors we’re discussing). Considering as I said that San Fran’s empty scolding seems to be consistent with the newly described government right to expression from last term’s Summum case, and doesn’t seem to deprive anyone of his rights, the chances that the Supreme Court will take up this case appear remote. But I will grant that if they do, the odds would be good that the circuit court ruling would be overturned - and this would be true regardless of which circuit we are talking about.

 

[CatholicGerman]

You mean SF hasn’t seceded yet?

 

[AndrewRaZ]

It may not be terribly charitable to say this, but I certainly hope that Cardinal Levada gives them the following answer:

“No.”

 

[irishpatrick]

This nation, and its courts, have very little rational thought left. This will simply end-up with the Church in SF not doing adoptions at all.

 

[JimG]

Reading the language of the San Francisco City Board of Supervisors Resolution makes me think that if there were ever a case in modern times for imposing the interdict on a city, SF might be it.

 

[yossi]

The San Francisco City Board of Supervisors, a city organ sees itself fit to circumvent the US State Department and engage in foreign affairs. What does it propose it the Vatican refuses to comply with the city’s demands, cut off trade relations? The Vatican determines doctrine, but it is the realm of bishops and archbishops to determine how to implement doctrine and exercise their authority. The San Francisco City Board of Supervisors should take issue with the Churche’s local authority who is responsible for catholic adoption agencies.

 

[Digitonomy]

The San Francisco City Board of Supervisors, a city organ sees itself fit to circumvent the US State Department and engage in foreign affairs.

Cities and states engaging in their own foreign policy are not that unusual - most commonly it is trade-related. On political issues like this, it’s usually grandstanding. An example a few years ago was when Giuliani kicked Yassir Arafat out of some upper crust performance.

yossi:

The Vatican determines doctrine, but it is the realm of bishops and archbishops to determine how to implement doctrine and exercise their authority. The San Francisco City Board of Supervisors should take issue with the Churche’s local authority who is responsible for catholic adoption agencies.

This is a good point in general, and I think they mostly wanted to kick around Levada, since he was the former archbishop. However, hasn’t the Vatican issued guidelines of some sort discouraging adoption by gays? In which case it would be legit to whine to the Vatican, rather than (or in addition to) the archdiocese.

 

[beckers]

The 9th circuit should overrule it because of the bad writing. Its like a 5 year complaining.

 

[JimG]

The 9th circuit should overrule it because of the bad writing. Its like a 5 year complaining.

In that case, the court should soften the blow by offering to provide some cheese with their whine.

 

[yossi]

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the city and wrote, since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want, “It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders”.
There is an expression in Hebrew used in Israel a lot, “The dogs bark and the caravan goes on its way”.
So since it is all bark and no bite, let the dogs bark and howl.

 

[LRThunder]

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the city and wrote, since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want, “It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders”.
There is an expression in Hebrew used in Israel a lot, “The dogs bark and the caravan goes on its way”.
So since it is all bark and no bite, let the dogs bark and howl.

Except it demonstrates an attitude against a religion, and thus could be the foundation for further discrimination.

Just imagine if the resolution condemned Islam…then I doubt there would be much yawning or “so what?”

 

[Digitonomy]

Except it demonstrates an attitude against a religion, and thus could be the foundation for further discrimination.

Just imagine if the resolution condemned Islam…then I doubt there would be much yawning or “so what?”

There have been plenty of public officials that have said things defamatory of Islam - I don’t know of any city council that has issued a proclamation along these lines, but if one did, it would be constitutionally protected.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

There have been plenty of public officials that have said things defamatory of Islam - I don’t know of any city council that has issued a proclamation along these lines, but if one did, it would be constitutionally protected.

But it wasn’t just something said in passing, it was an official statement coming from not just one person, but a group of people who are elected (or appointed) to represent the entire city. And no, they’re not constitutionally protected if they decide to say something defamatory–it’s called slander.
I am deeply sorry if I sound rude, but the First Amendment is not a free pass to say what one wants, despite what the media likes to tell people.

 

[Digitonomy]

But it wasn’t just something said in passing, it was an official statement coming from not just one person, but a group of people who are elected (or appointed) to represent the entire city.

Yes, we discussed this - governments are now explicitly recognized to have freedom of expression, since the Summum case. They must be careful in using this, or else LR Thunder’s first comment could apply, or at least it could be argued by a plaintiff.

AndrewRaZ:

And no, they’re not constitutionally protected if they decide to say something defamatory–it’s called slander.
I am deeply sorry if I sound rude, but the First Amendment is not a free pass to say what one wants, despite what the media likes to tell people.

Well, you can say as much defamatory you want about say, Islam, or Catholicism, or Kansas City Chiefs fans. It’s only when you have a specific injured party that can bring suit that you run into trouble. In this case, if you read carefully, the parties that were defamed by the resolution were Cardinal Levada and the Vatican. So the Cardinal or the Vatican could if they choose take the city council to court. But the case would be pretty weak, since the main claim of the resolution - that the Church’s policy is discriminatory - is true. Most of the other claims, such as that the cardinal’s rhetoric is hateful or ignorant, are matters of opinion, rather than fact. And they also know that Cardinal Levada isn’t going to waste his time doing something as pointless as suing the council over a toothless resolution.