Dover Intelligent-Design Case
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 13:22:52 PST 2005
Was it a willful bad faith violation, or ignorance and misled? I
don't think they were trying to flaunt the constitution so much as
they were interpreting it with wishcraft -- crafting the law to fit
I would not think punitive damages are appropriate for inanity in
Sanctions for lying, perhaps.
No. Tactically and strategically I think the approach of keeping the
individuals off the suit as named parties was appropriate. And I
don't see the evidence of bad faith -- as I understand it -- here to
support punitive damages.
But then, I was a litigator and saw lots of this sort of stuff go by
in ordinary civil suits -- not the norm, far from it -- but all too
common, and so my threshold for bad faith might be too high.
Steve (gotta-stop-avoiding-grading) Jamar
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Lupu wrote:
> In light of the judge's appraisal of the behavior of the Board
> members, do members of the list think that punitive damages might
> have been awarded against particular Board members had they
> been sued individually? Would their ordinary immunity from
> damages have been lost as a result of what now looks like a wilful,
> bad faith violation of the Constitution? Would an award of punitive
> damages against them have been an appropriate remedy?
> (Perhaps plaintiffs' counsel feared that such an award would
> generate some sympathy for the individual defendants, and
> backlash against the plaintiffs. Obtaining money, of course, was not
> the point of the suit -- but such a remedy would certainly deter the
> next school board that headed in this direction.)
> Chip Lupu
> On 20 Dec 2005 at 15:56, Ed Brayton wrote:
>> Marc Stern wrote:
>> Were there any interveners? Might Discovery Institute intervene
>> for purposes of appeal? .During the fight over equal access, the
>> Supreme Court held in Bender v. Williamsport ASD,475 US 534
>> that a
>> single school board member did not have standing to appeal a
>> decision to allow religious clubs .A fortiori former members
>> should lack standing, unless ,perhaps they were sued in an
>> individual capacity and held for damages.
>> The Foundation for Thought and Ethics attempted to intervene but was
>> denied. Discovery Institute did not attempt to intervene. This suit,
>> as far as I know, was only against the school district as a whole,
>> against the individual members of the school board. There are no
>> damages awarded and none asked for. So I can't imagine there is
>> with standing that could intervene at this point. The school board
>> said that they will not file an appeal of the case.
>> Ed Brayton
> Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
> The George Washington University Law School
> 2000 H St., NW
> Washington D.C 20052
> (202) 994-7053
> ICLUPU at main.nlc.gwu.edu
> ICLUPU at law.gwu.edu
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"A life directed chiefly toward the fulfillment of personal desires
sooner or later always leads to bitter disappointment."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw