It's interesting to read the two sides.

Hostettler's news release on the bill.

ACLU Criticizes House Passage of “Public Expression of Religion Act,” Says Bill Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)

Hmm.. why do religious emblems need to be authorized before they can be put on gravestones at Arlington?

Wow, that act is outragous. We seriously have a House full of out of touch jackasses. Gosh I can't wait until the elections.

Those assholes need to know they have sworn to uphold the consitution, not religious zealotry. I wounder if this act in of itself is unconsititutional. If so, then it really doesn't matter because when such establishment clause case arises, the attorney can claim that this act is unconsitutional as a part of his/her brief. And if that attorney won that a certain act violates the constitution, then chances are he/she would win that question of law also.

The public compensation of these overly-zealous religious bigots needs to stop - and stop NOW.

When these "do-good" lawyers are no longer compensated for their frivolous lawsuits we'll begin to see them for what they are: Money grubbing scum.

Jefferson, how are they religious bigots? Please help me see it how you see it.

The claim was made that this act is unconstitutional, how???

This bill seeks to address the United States Code, which is established and maintained by the United States Congress. Congress makes the laws. The section in dispute was amended in 1976. The argument that this would prevent cases from going to court is flawed and these flaws are shown by some of the most historic Court Decisions. Brown v Board of Education (1956), Engel v Vitale (1962), Abington v. Shemp (1963), Lee v. Weisman (1972) and even Roe v. Wade (1973).

In Alaska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975) the Supreme Court held that the American rule, that is, the rule that each party bears its own attorneys fees "is deeply rooted in our history and in congressional policy." Furthermore the Court went on to say that since only Congress, not the courts, can authorize such an exception to the American rule."

So it would seem that the Constitutionality of this action has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, and the act of the Legislature is the Constitutionally correct act.

The reasoning for this legislation is abundantly clear, and that is to suppress the use of black attempts by litigators. In 1993, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union mailed a letter to all the public educators in the State of Indiana. The ICLU informs the educators that should they support a prayer at graduation, the ICLU will sue both the school and any individuals who approve the graduation prayer. The letter plainly states the ICLU will win and that whoever is sued will have to pay not only their attorneys fees but the ICLU fees as well. Hmm don't support this or we will sue you. IF we do and you lose you have to pay our fee as well as your own. In other words, it is easier for you to let us tell you what your rights are then it is for you to go to Court and allow the government to function.

Time and again the ACLU has used this tactic against small groups and communities who cannot afford the outrageous court cost the it would cost to not only defend themselves but if they should lose pay the opponents bill as well.

This bill allows free access to the Courts for everyone. Today it is not the power of the State that infringing upon rights, but rather the power of special interest that is infringing upon the peoples rights. Case in point, the County of Los Angeles against public opinion, changed the seal of the city without challenge for fear of not only having to pay the one million dollar plus price tag of making the change, but perhaps another million dollar court case fee.

The very people who are suppose to be defending the rights and civil liberties of the people are the ones destroying them. Until 1976 there was no right in a trail to attorney fees, so it would seem that for some two hundred years this was the law of the land. It is time to return to this tradition, take the use of extortion of the table.

dmk

The funny thing about all this is no where does it say that there is to be a seperation of church and state. In fact, the consitution goes so far as to say that congress shall pass NO LAWs regarding such issues. So should the aclu be giving lawyer fees for trying to bring down a war memorial? According to congress, oh hell no. I for one agree.

Hmm, so let's state clearly what these lawyer's fees are:

When someone believes that his freedom of religion has been violated, he can take that case to court. If he wins that court case, meaning that his freedom of religion has indeed been violated, the violator must pay the victim's lawyer costs.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. People shouldn't be forced to pay money to have freedom of religion.

The justification for removing these lawyer fees is that the threat of having to pay for the victim's lawyer fees discourages violators from taking their case to court. But without lawyer fees, the inability of the victim to pay for his own laywer discourages victims from going to court.

I really think conservatives see the letters "ACLU" and immediately make up their minds. But can't we all agree that even people who can't afford a lawyer deserve religious freedom?

Like I said earlier... stop TAXPAYER MONEY from going to these anti-religious zealots at the ACLU, and it'll dry up.

They're not "doing a public service". They're trying to make money and make names for themselves. Very scummy. Very self-serving.

I'm not saying taxpayer money should go to the ACLU. I'm saying that if someone violates the religious freedom guaranteed in the law, and the victim has to go to court and wins, then the violator should pay for the victim's lawyer.

Sometimes this means the violator's money will be going to the ACLU, but I don't think we should treat victims of civil rights violations unfairly simply because some people don't like the ACLU.