- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Texas Atty Gen and U of Houston law professor agree: City of Houston overreached
Posted on 10/17/14 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 10/17/14 at 3:57 pm
in issuing subpoenas for Houston-area pastor's sermons.
LINK
quote:
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also issued a letter saying the city impinged on the pastors’ First Amendment rights and called for the subpoenas’ immediate reversal. “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Abbott wrote to Feldman. “The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in their knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government.”
LINK
This post was edited on 10/17/14 at 4:43 pm
8
Posted on 10/17/14 at 4:14 pm to L.A.
Not true. All the lawyers on here said it was just discovery.
I'm gonna go with the TD lawyers.
I'm gonna go with the TD lawyers.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 4:14 pm to L.A.
Our very idiotic mayor scaled back the HERO list today/last night. "We would never want this to come across as religious persecution" 
She is a twat.
She is a twat.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 4:27 pm to idlewatcher
I suggest the next fishing expedition she attempts be between her girlfriends thighs.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 4:47 pm to L.A.
Those poor internet lawyers that thought otherwise.....
Posted on 10/17/14 at 5:30 pm to L.A.
The pervert should be recalled.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 5:37 pm to L.A.
The pastors ended up not being involved in the lawsuit, and thus the subpoena was promptly bitch-slapped. That's pretty much what most said would happen.
This ruling isn't saying the subpoena would have been thrown out regardless of the involvement of the pastors and churches in the suit. Had they been, the subpoena would have been perfectly legal. This isn't some unilateral declaration that churches are free from legal precedent like some here were claiming.
This ruling isn't saying the subpoena would have been thrown out regardless of the involvement of the pastors and churches in the suit. Had they been, the subpoena would have been perfectly legal. This isn't some unilateral declaration that churches are free from legal precedent like some here were claiming.
This post was edited on 10/17/14 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:07 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:we have the Constitution for that....right?
This isn't some unilateral declaration that churches are free from legal precedent like some here were claiming.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:09 pm to L.A.
Were there actually posters on this board defending Houston? If so, who were the posters?
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:12 pm to lsuroadie
quote:
we have the Constitution for that....right?
Are you kidding me?
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Were there actually posters on this board defending Houston? If so, who were the posters?
Roger, cwill and one other lawyer cat.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:19 pm to the808bass
Yeah, that's not misleading at all.
I said that if the pastors and churches were not involved in the lawsuit, the subpoena would get thrown out with the swiftness. Which is exactly what happened.
If they had been, the subpoena would be perfectly legal.
I said that if the pastors and churches were not involved in the lawsuit, the subpoena would get thrown out with the swiftness. Which is exactly what happened.
If they had been, the subpoena would be perfectly legal.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
You didn't see any issue with a government subpoenaing religious messages. That's kind of the crux of the issue.
And I'm not sure the subpoena got tossed. I think the city amended it because it looked asinine on its face and they were getting embarassed.
And I'm not sure the subpoena got tossed. I think the city amended it because it looked asinine on its face and they were getting embarassed.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:They weren't so much defending Houston as taking the piss out of the hysterical headlines, which basically treated it as the death of religious freedom in Houston. "CITY OF HOUSTON SUBPOENAS PREACHERS, ENDS LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE" makes for a sexier headline than "LAW FIRM HIRED BY PARTY TO CIVIL LAWSUIT ASKS FOR MOON AND STARS IN DISCOVERY, IS TOLD TO PISS OFF" as that happens in pretty much every litigation ever.
Were there actually posters on this board defending Houston? If so, who were the posters?
That poor Susman Godfrey junior attorney who signed the request is probably getting her arse chewed out for not considering the political aspect.
This post was edited on 10/17/14 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:26 pm to the808bass
quote:
You didn't see any issue with a government subpoenaing religious messages.
I very clearly said it was a matter of the city puffing it's chest out. My only point was that, technically, it would be legal if they were involved in the lawsuit. The issue in that thread was that most people don't understand what the first amendment actually protects. They think that churches are free from any and all intervention in every situation, and that just isn't true. The outrage was rooted purely in emotional ignorance.
quote:
That's kind of the crux of the issue.
The crux of the issue is what is legal and what isn't. Everything else is just emotionally driven message board fodder.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 6:37 pm to the808bass
quote:I believe this is correct. The city amended the subpoena.
And I'm not sure the subpoena got tossed. I think the city amended it because it looked asinine on its face and they were getting embarassed.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 7:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
I think you have the discovery rules confused. How would 1st amendment rights change and sermons be discoverable even if the pastors were part of the suit?
This post was edited on 10/17/14 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 10/17/14 at 7:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The issue in that thread was that most people don't understand what the first amendment actually protects. They think that churches are free from any and all intervention in every situation, and that just isn't true.
So drop your knowledge and clarify.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 7:47 pm to lsuroadie
quote:of course.
we have the Constitution for that....right?
Posted on 10/17/14 at 9:54 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
"We would never want this to come across as religious persecution."
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News