Scouts win!

[Solomwi]

Wow, so you were wrong and you still persist?

Juries.

This is a bizarre response, yet par for the course at the same time.

[Cort Haus]

Big Gay Al

[Solomwi]

QFT

I haven't followed this and have mixed feelings on it.

On the one hand if the Scouts have a constitutional right they should not have contracts terminated by reason of exercising that right. I think most people would agree with that.

I'm not sure I would, at least as a general statement. Somewhat in line with the rest of your post, the contractual relationship requires bilateral voluntary association, and the statement above ignores the other party's right to decide to disassociate itself with the party exercising its constitutional right.

When the disassociating party is a government entity, I'm sympathetic to some limits on the ability to do that. If you're in that situation because you're accepting discretionary government benefits, though, I'll tend to chalk it up as the price of the benefits. Forgoing those benefits and exercising your constitutional rights is a perfectly legitimate choice, so you're not actually being deprived of your rights. Agreeing to waive or forgo exercising a basic right is pretty commonplace, as I'm sure you're aware.

[Asher]

My younger brother was a gay boy scout.

I was a gay boy scout also.

The Canadian boy scouts are more sensible and permit gays to be members, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

above ignores the other party's right to decide to disassociate itself with the party exercising its constitutional right.

The ruling explicitly said that they were permitted to disassociate with the Scouts and not renew their lease. Their justification could not appeal to anything that the Scouts believe as a rationale for termination of the lease as they did here. This is where the First Amendment violation comes in.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, while you undoubtedly like the result, you can't deny that juries are generally made up of the same retards who make up the general population. In other words, ignorant of the law and the Constitution.

To this I quote:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F Buckley

I'm not elitist. This decision was a common-sense ruling rendered by the judge and jury. It's an important part of the judicial system to arrive at a fair outcome through the assessment of one's peers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, there's an appeal process for a reason.

Sure, it lets the government waste more money to prosecute their own citizens.

End result, 5-4 decision at the Supremes. Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy.

[Solomwi]

The ruling explicitly said that they were permitted to disassociate with the Scouts and not renew their lease. Their justification could not appeal to anything that the Scouts believe as a rationale for termination of the lease as they did here. This is where the First Amendment violation comes in.

A. Did you miss where I was responding to what Flubber said as a general statement, rather than speaking about this case?

B. That's exactly why the jury is wrong here. Again, see Rumsfeld v. FAIR. That one was unanimous, with Alito taking no part. If they need no rationale to withdraw the benefit, as the Scouts admit is the case, then even an otherwise unconstitutional rationale is fine. Do you really expect Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy to do a complete about face on the issue?

Of course, you've framed the post-trial posture in a way that makes the Scouts' victory completely meaningless. The city simply has to terminate the lease without giving a reason. Damn them for actually trying to work with the Scouts and give them a chance to continue suckling at the government teat.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's exactly why the jury is wrong here. Again, see Rumsfeld v. FAIR. That one was unanimous, with Alito taking no part. If they need no rationale to withdraw the benefit, as the Scouts admit is the case, then even an otherwise unconstitutional rationale is fine

Umm, no.

Fundamental rights cannot be broached by a contract. You can't sell yourself in slavery, and you can't force the scouts to limit their freedom of speech in order to retain the lease.

They are perfectly allowed to cancel the lease. Just not because the scouts say things that the Philly council does not like.

The city simply has to terminate the lease without giving a reason. Damn them for actually trying to work with the Scouts and give them a chance to continue suckling at the government teat.

It never was about the money. The money is just a smokescreen. They won't cancel the lease. It was everything about the Scouts having the temerity to reject homosexuality. They would sooner spend gobs of money to take this on appeal to the Supremes rather then simply terminate the lease.

[Solomwi]

Read the precedent, Ben. When the government doesn't need a reason to withdraw the benefit, unconstitutional conditions doesn't come into play. Besides, fundamental rights are contractually waived every day. What do you think a plea agreement does? Or a civil settlement, for that matter?

They won't cancel the lease because, pursuant to an erroneous jury verdict, they're soon to be enjoined from doing so. That will last until either the Circuit Court or SCOTUS points out that no unconstitutional condition exists. Again, had the city simply said "you're out as of X date," there would have been no problem. Instead they tried to work with the Scouts and give them a chance to correct their shortcoming, as it turned out, much to the city's detriment.

[Ben Kenobi]

They won't cancel the lease because, pursuant to an erroneous jury verdict, they're soon to be enjoined from doing so.

That's a consequence of the route that they took. The scouts understood this as an attack on their fundamental rights, and a jury has understood the same to be the case.

That will last until either the Circuit Court or SCOTUS points out that no unconstitutional condition exists.

You're pretty persistant aren't you? I don't think SCOTUS will look on their case too fondly.

Fact of the matter is that the Philly city council went so far as to pass a law for the explicit purpose of abrogating the fundamental rights to expression of the Scouts. That's a big no no in constitutional law, especially for the City, who's civil servants are paid by the taxpayers themselves. Do you think that the people of Philadelphia want their money to go to a SCOTUS case? No.

Again, this case was never about the money. Not for a second. If you are trying to work with the scouts, you don't pass laws after already been slapped down by SCOTUS in 2000, to try to refight the battle. You call them up, ask if they would accept changes to the lease agreement. You haggle, come up with a dollar figure and away you go.

Philly Council did none of this, and are paying the price.

[giblets]

Why is Ben so confident that he knows the law better than a lawyer?

[Solomwi]

Ben is confident about a lot of things that defy reality. He's a complete legal illiterate, but won't hesitate to opine on the finer points of constitutional law. He's also dead wrong on the facts (see above, where he, once again, asserts that this is Philly coming back for round two of Dale, even though that case didn't involve Philly at all), but won't hesitate to spew forth his bizarro version as gospel.

[Hauldren Collider]

Sure, it lets the government waste more money to prosecute their own citizens.

End result, 5-4 decision at the Supremes. Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy.

No no no no. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor. And they might get even get Alito along with them. In fact, I think all 9 justices would probably affirm the city's right to get rid of the Boy Scout's charter. BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUSLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

But it has to get through the STATE COURT SYSTEM FIRST you ****** and then to get to the Supreme Court there has to be a federal question and there is no doubt that what Philly is doing is constitutional.

[Solomwi]

No no no no. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor. And they might get even get Alito along with them. In fact, I think all 9 justices would probably affirm the city's right to get rid of the Boy Scout's charter. BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUSLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

But it has to get through the STATE COURT SYSTEM FIRST you ****** and then to get to the Supreme Court there has to be a federal question and there is no doubt that what Philly is doing is constitutional.

You're almost as wrong as Ben always is with this post.

1. All the city is trying to do is stop subsidizing the Scouts. They're not pulling a charter, just saying "If you're going to discriminate, that's your right, but we'll have to charge you full rent and evict you from our building."

2. The case is in federal district court. Assuming the city appeals, the 3rd Circuit is the only step between the trial court and SCOTUS.

3. The only remaining question in the case is whether what Philly is doing is an unconstitutional condition. It's a fairly easy question to answer with a little bit of knowledge (no, since the city could end the lease for no reason at all), but because of the jury's mistake, it's still the question that has to be addressed.

It's okay, though, because you don't make nearly the habit Ben does of it, and you even managed to hint around at the right answers in a couple spots.