Final Ruling Expected In Bible Banner Case; Kountze Cheerleaders Hold Press Conference

KOUNTZE, Texas, May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being released by Liberty Institute:

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120523/DC12743LOGO-b)

What: Liberty Institute and Beaumont attorney David Starnes will accompany their clients, members of the Kountze High School and Middle School Cheerleaders and their parents during a media availability to discuss a Hardin County District Judge's expected ruling tomorrow in the high-profile case over the constitutionality of the cheerleaders' display of run-through banners with Bible messages at sporting events.

Who: Kountze High School and Middle School Cheerleaders and their parents, who stood up for their speech and religious freedom rights seven months ago in the face of an unconstitutional KISD ban on Bible banners, will attend to discuss the case with media, along with their attorneys, David Starnes and Liberty Institute attorney Roger Byron.

When: Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 8, at 5 p.m. CT

Where: The Law Offices of David W. Starnes
390 Park, Suite 700
Beaumont, TX 77701

Background:

In an effort to share positive and uplifting messages with players and fans, high school cheerleaders in Kountze, TX, decided to paint Bible verses on their student-made run-through banners at their school football games. After receiving a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Kountze ISD superintendent banned the messages. In Sept. 2012, Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit, Coti Matthews on behalf of her minor child, Macy Matthews, et al., v. Kountze Independent School District, on behalf of the Kountze High School and Middle School cheerleaders and was granted a temporary injunction that allowed student-made religious banners to continue for the duration of the football season and until the court made a final decision in the case.

About: Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America — in our schools, for our churches and throughout the public arena. Liberty's vision is to reestablish religious liberty in accordance with the principles of our Founding Fathers. For information, visit www.LibertyInstitute.org.

SOURCE Liberty Institute

View the original article here

National School Boards Association Applauds Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling to Strike Down Voucher Scheme

ALEXANDRIA, Va., May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National School Boards Association (NSBA) applauds the ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that finds the state's school vouchers unconstitutional.

The Louisiana voucher law has diverted taxpayers' money from public schools to private individuals and schools that are not subject to academic, operational, and accountability standards.

"NSBA stands for strong public school system for all students. Vouchers undermine that fundamental principle and, as the court concluded, violate constitutional principles, too," said NSBA President David A. Pickler. 

Working with the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), NSBA pushed to overturn the law through an amicus brief in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana. That lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of several measures adopted by the Louisiana legislature, including the ploy to give vouchers to students in low-performing schools. The NSBA brief noted that the voucher scheme further aggravates the plight of academically challenged schools by taking away much-needed funds from low-performing public schools, thus perpetuating its own survival. 

"These kinds of gimmicks undermine our country's longstanding commitment to public education and steal resources from public school students," said NSBA Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel. "These are not grassroots efforts being proposed by residents who are concerned about the education and future of the state's most vulnerable children, these are the products of out-of-state special-interest groups looking for profits."  

Under the provisions of the voucher law, Louisiana gives public funds to private schools, including religious schools, as "scholarships" to cover the tuition and fees of students whose parents choose to remove their children from public schools deemed "failing." However, the plan goes so far as to allow parents to use vouchers for their children as early as kindergarten, even if the child never attended a public school or the school is highly ranked.  

"We are pleased that the Louisiana Supreme Court has reaffirmed a basic tenet of the state Constitution: that taxpayer money should go to public schools that are open to all students," said LSBA Executive Director Scott Richard. "We hope all state residents can understand the dangerous precedent that a voucher program has set and how such a program undermines our local community schools. LSBA will continue to work towards its mission of service, support and leadership for local school boards and to ensure a quality public education for all students." 

NSBA opposes private school vouchers and tuition tax subsidies, which have continuously failed to improve student achievement. NSBA is committed to defeating legislation and initiatives that unconstitutionally divert taxpayers' funds from public schools to private and religious institutions that can exclude students for any reason.  

Founded in 1940, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is a not-for-profit organization representing state associations of school boards and their more than 90,000 local school board members throughout the U.S. Working with and through our state associations, NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. www.nsba.org

SOURCE National School Board Association

View the original article here

Obama asks Supreme Court to review appointments ruling

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Setting the stage for a constitutional showdown, the Obama administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to rule that presidents have broad authority to make certain appointments without Senate approval.

If the nine justices agree to hear the dispute over appointments President Barack Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board last year, it will be one of the biggest issues before the court in its next term, which will begin in October and end in June 2014.

In January the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that three appointments to the panel, which normally has five members, were invalid.

The appeals court agreed with Noel Canning, the bottling company that challenged Obama's move, in finding that the president did not have the authority to make the NLRB appointments because the Senate was not technically in recess at the time.

The U.S. Constitution allows the president to make appointments when the Senate is in recess. Such appointments expire at the end of the congressional session.

Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Noel Canning argued that an NLRB ruling against it was invalid because of the appointments, which meant the board lacked a quorum.

Obama made his NLRB appointments on January 4, 2012, when the Senate was in session but not conducting business. The congressional session began on January 3, according to the Senate website.

In the brief filed on Thursday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli defended the recess appointment powers of the president, disputing the court's conclusion that it can only be used in the period between formal sessions of the Senate.

Presidents from both parties have used their recess appointment authority to make appointments when the Senate is not conducting business.

If the appeals court ruling was left to stand, it would "dramatically curtail" the president's authority, Verrilli said.

In addition to limiting presidential power, the ruling meant that the NLRB did not have the required quorum to make decisions, casting doubt on all its actions and rulings since Obama made the appointments.

The ruling "threatens a significant disruption of the federal government's operations," Verrilli wrote.

The high court will decide whether to hear the case after lawyers for Noel Canning file a response, which is due within 30 days.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Amanda Becker; Editing by Howard Goller and Xavier Briand)

View the original article here

Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'

Limbaugh

In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.

"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal "

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

Also Read

View the original article here

Supreme Court wary of broad gay marriage ruling

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America's top court takes up the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage on Tuesday when the nine Supreme Court justices consider the legality of a California ballot initiative that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Tuesday will be the first of two days of oral arguments on the issue. On Wednesday, the court will consider the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

In what is scheduled to be about three hours of deliberations with lawyers over the two days, the justices will have their say on what gay activists see as a key civil rights issue reminiscent of famous Supreme Court cases of the past, including Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 case in which the court invalidated bans on interracial marriage.

The cases come before the high court at a time when more states have legalized gay marriage. Last year three more - Maryland, Maine and Washington - did so, bringing the total to nine plus the District of Columbia.

"Never before in our history has a major civil rights issue landed on the doorstep of the Supreme Court with this wave of public support," said Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for opponents of the California initiative, which is known as Proposition 8.

Strong opposition to gay marriage still exists, however, both among Republicans in Congress and in many states across the nation. A total of 30 states, including California, have constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage. Nine states, including California, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships among same-sex couples.

Advocates for both sides plan to demonstrate outside the multi-columned Washington courthouse. Those who plan to attend include Chief Justice John Roberts' cousin Jean Podrasky, a lesbian from California who would like to marry her partner.

"There's no fundamental right to same sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution," said Austin Nimocks, a member of the legal team arguing in support of the California law.

Some legal experts think that with the issue unsettled in the states, a majority of the justices might not be inclined to make any sweeping pronouncements on the issue as the democratic process plays out.

MULTIPLE OPTIONS

There are various ways in which they could do that as the Proposition 8 case presents the justices with multiple options.

The justices could proclaim that gay marriage bans are constitutionally unsound. They could uphold Proposition 8 as a law with a legitimate purpose that was approved by a majority of voters in California. They could also plot a middle path by striking down the law without making any broad pronouncements about whether gay marriage bans in other states that have them should be struck down.

Another way the court could rule might be viewed as an anticlimax of sorts: The justices could simply decide that it cannot rule on the merits because of the procedural complexities that brought the case to the high court.

The state of California declined to support Proposition 8 when the plaintiffs filed suit in 2009 in a federal district court in San Francisco, meaning there was no party defending the law until its proponents entered the case. The federal judge struck the law down, a ruling that was upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A Supreme Court decision concluding that the law's backers do not have legal standing to defend the law would wipe out the appeals court decision, but leave the district court decision that struck down Proposition 8 on the books.

The way the justices rule could depend in large part on the likely swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Although a conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy has in the past authored two opinions that expanded gay rights.

Lawyers representing two same-sex couples in California who want to marry are hoping the justices will go big and are making the most sweeping arguments.

The counsel for Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo will argue that under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee, there is a fundamental right for people to marry someone of the same sex.

Kris Perry, who has raised four children with her partner, Sandy Stier, was hopeful and optimistic.

"We have been waiting for a long time to get married," she said last week. "We are very excited to have the end in sight."

(To follow oral arguments both days, visit the Reuters live blog at http://reut.rs/scotus1)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here