The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Supreme Court faces cases on a cross, juveniles
Court declines to hear Bridgeport appeal on clergy abuse documents
Oct. 05, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor talks with Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl following the 56th annual Red Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington Oct. 4.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionWASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court opened its 2009 term Oct. 5 with a new justice and cases dealing with at least one religious rights issue -- about a cross on a war memorial in a federal preserve -- and other cases about the circumstances leading to deportation, about an immigrant in detention being denied medical care and several dealing with the sentencing of convicted criminals.
The court also agreed to take another case about gun rights, following last term's ruling that overturned a Washington municipal ordinance prohibiting gun ownership.
Among the court's first actions was to decline to consider an appeal by the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., concerning the release of thousands of pages of documents from settled lawsuits over charges of sexual abuse by priests. In a lengthy list of cases the court declined to accept was the diocese's request that the court reverse the Connecticut Supreme Court's May order that the diocese release some of the documents to four daily newspapers.
Since 2002, The New York Times, the Hartford Courant, the Boston Globe and The Washington Post have sought access to more than 12,000 pages of depositions, exhibits and legal arguments in 23 lawsuits involving six priests from the Bridgeport Diocese.
Also among the 90 pages of case lists the court declined to take were those asking the court to require the state of Illinois to offer "Choose Life" license plates; challenging the way the death penalty is imposed in Louisiana and Illinois; and challenging Florida's requirement for schoolchildren to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance in class.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's first day on the court actually came in September, when the justices reheard an election campaign spending law case carried over from the 2008 term. But her first day during a regular session Oct. 5 started with cases dealing with a question over attorney-client privilege and with the interrogation of a criminal suspect.
Sotomayor was confirmed to the court this summer, replacing retired Justice David Souter. The New York native is the sixth Catholic currently sitting on the nine-member court. The child of parents who moved from Puerto Rico, she's also the first Hispanic and just the third woman justice in the history of the high court.
In the first week of the new term, the court will hear Oct. 7 Salazar v. Buono, which challenges the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the federal government to no longer permit a cross, erected as a war memorial in 1934, to be displayed on public land.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars put a cross on a rock in an isolated part of the 1.6 million-acre Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, Calif., as a memorial to those killed in World War I. The monument, which has been replaced several times by private organizations or individuals, is quite remote, visible only from a little-used side road.
But a retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, challenged the cross's placement on federal land. Lower courts agreed with his argument that its presence in the reserve gives the inappropriate impression of government endorsement of a religious message. The cross remains on the rock but has been covered since the court ruling.
The case has attracted amicus, or friend of the court, briefs weighing in on one side or the other from dozens of groups representing religious, First Amendment, civil rights and veterans organizations, as well as those representing atheists, military and some police organizations.
An act of Congress in response to Buono's lawsuit and other challenges provided for the land where the cross stands to be transferred to private ownership in a swap. The lower courts stopped that exchange from taking place, arguing that a "doughnut hole" of private land amid a vast tract of government property would not appear any different to a passer-by, who might conclude it was a federally sanctioned display.
The question of prison sentences for juveniles has also attracted interest from church-related organizations. Joe Harris Sullivan and Terrance Jamar Graham were both sentenced by Florida courts to life imprisonment without parole, for crimes committed when they were 13 and 17, respectively.
In separate cases being heard jointly by the court Nov. 9, Sullivan and Graham challenge their sentences as cruel and unusual punishment. A 2005 Supreme Court ruling struck down the death penalty for juveniles, finding in part that for young people, with more limited judgment than adults, the practice constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Among the groups advocating for the life sentences to be overruled are former juvenile offenders -- including actor Charles Dutton, who first went to juvenile reform school at 13 and to prison for manslaughter at 17 -- who argue that they are examples of the value of giving juveniles the chance to turn their lives around.
The American Catholic Correctional Chaplains Association is one of two dozen faith groups and religious leaders that submitted another brief arguing to overturn life sentences for juveniles.
A case being followed by immigrants' advocates, many of whom are in Catholic and other faith-group-sponsored legal services offices, seeks to hold federal medical workers responsible for the care of a man whose cancer was allowed to advance untreated. Despite his complaints of pain, Francisco Castaneda, a Salvadoran immigrant, went untreated so long when he was in a California prison and then in federal immigration detention that he died at age 36, shortly after his release when a doctor finally diagnosed penile cancer.
The cases, Migliaccio v. Castaneda and Henneford v. Castaneda, also paired by the court, challenge the Federal Tort Claims Act, which bars damages against individuals working for the federal government and otherwise limits claims for negligence against the government. The paired case will be heard after the first of the year.
In the last few years, news reports have uncovered dozens of deaths and many other claims of poor medical care in immigration detention. Late in the Bush administration and again since President Barack Obama took office, changes in procedures and new oversight systems have been announced for how immigrants are treated in detention.
Two other cases deal more directly with immigration. Padilla v. Kentucky raises the question of whether immigrants must be provided with advice about the possible ramifications of criminal cases on their immigration status. It revolves around a Honduran immigrant's criminal charges for drug-related crimes and his subsequent deportation proceedings.
On the advice of his attorney, Jose Padilla, a legal immigrant and veteran of the U.S. military, pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Although his attorney told him otherwise, the guilty plea triggered deportation proceedings. The court will be asked to consider the obligations of legal counsel in such cases and whether the faulty advice of Padilla's attorney constitutes grounds for setting aside his guilty plea. The case will be heard Oct. 13.
In Kucana v. Holder, being argued Nov. 10, the court will be asked to evaluate the oversight procedures for government decisions in immigration cases.
Rulings in all the cases are expected before the court adjourns next summer.
Minutes ago the status of the
Minutes ago the status of the Bridgeport diocese's documemt case was settled.
The United States Supreme Court will not block the release of priest sex abuse documents.
This is good news for all victims of sexual abuse by anyone in that it sets a precedent that can be used to compel other public and private institutions to unseal records regarding the sexual abuse of minors.
It is particularly heartening for those of us in the Roman Catholic Church who have long pressed for the accountability and transparency that was promised by the USCCB in 2002 but which leadership has been slow to delivery.
The release of these files, records, testimony etc., will provide a window into this secret world, protected and enabled by Clericalism, and will help expose the how and why of a religious denomination's gross failures in protecting the bodies and souls of untold numbers of vulnerable children from narcissistic, sociopathic sexual predators.
The expectation is that the release of these documents will show just who the bishops were who made the decisions to protect errant priests from discovery, these known sexual predators who were transferred from place to place without one ounce of pastoral concern for the children who were victimized.
This is a step in the right direction and I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for this decision.
Perhaps now the consciences of the American bishops will be touched enough that as a group they will support the removal of all criminal and civil statutes of limitation in regard to childhood sexual abuse and instruct their individual state Catholic Conferences to do the same.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Does the case involve just
Does the case involve just diocesan records? What about religious congregations (including LCWR members)?
This is a great day for
This is a great day for victim's rights and human rights in general. Catholic bishops who tried to conceal these records should be considered criminals because they conspired against the transparency of truth. They will pay for their crimes. It is far from over. A great day!
I am thrilled Lori lost in
I am thrilled Lori lost in the US Supreme Court. This is a major victory, but I wonder if the legal gymnastics of a bishop are over.
I fear motions and counter motions designed to delay or prevent release of documents, some of which may have to wend their way through the courts for another ten years. Call it well-earned cynicism, but working through priest abusers, could Lori promote legal challenges by them based on privacy of one sort of another?
Another maneuver similar to LA where what, five years on, Mahony has passed off the issue to abusers who file their own motions to prevent disclosure? Then the judge gets some Catholic award, recuses himself, and the process is interminably stalled.
May I be completely wrong in these apprehensions, but I will believe it when I see it. The episcopal PR machine is in full swing with statements of support for Lori by the national bishops conference (planned in advance of course), and his own pious drivel will fill the media with distortions of the facts.
Still, praise the Lord for today's victory. It is ONLY the courts, legislatures and media that have the power to force bishops to come clean.
Unending gratitude to the Hartford Courant, NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and any other newspaper that joined the lawsuit for disclosure. But none of that would have occurred without the courage of survivors to endure years of legal machinations. We owe the unearthing of the rot to the tenacity of the survivors.
The chutzpah of the 10/5
The chutzpah of the 10/5 statement of support for Bishop Lori from his fellow bishops, grateful for "the balance he has tried to strike among the principles of compassion, transparency, religious freedom, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law," takes my breath away.
I'm grateful for the Waterbury,CT Superior Court and the CT Supreme Court; they make me glad I was raised there. I'm very grateful to the U.S. Supreme Court for bringing nearly a decade of resistance to American law to an end. I'm hopeful that CT Catholics will now ask their bishop for an accounting of "unrestricted funds and donations" spent on the attempt. This wall around transparency was a horse running an ethical dead last.
Ah, but Tod Tamberg has said
Ah, but Tod Tamberg has said that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has done everything they were legally required to do. Tamberg appeared quite upset with what I had to say about LA that he responded with the comments below followed by my comments which NCR chose not to post back in late August.
Tamberg's response (if it is Tod Tamberg):
Well, Sister Turlish, you can
Submitted by Tod Tamberg, Archdiocese of Los Angeles (not verified) on Aug. 25, 2009.
Well, Sister Turlish, you can CAP EVERY SENTENCE, if you like. But the fact remains that in all of your VERY CLERICAL-LIKE sermonizing, you do not take on the main point of my email, which is that you consistently GET IT WRONG when it comes to speaking about the details of sexual abuse in the church. This, despite readily available facts to the contrary (ie., newspapers, radio, television...).
I hope your words are not indicative of Voice of the Faithful's new project to promote dialogue and change within the church? Yikes! How is VOTF going to do any of that when its own leadership wish death by drowning to their fellow Catholics who disagree with such harsh rhetoric and misstatement of fact?
But before I sink to the bottom of the sea, I invite you again to find fault with the truth of the statements in my last email. Please feel free to cite pertinent news stories and settlement documents, which are readily available to you through your connections.
Stay happy and dry!
__________________
Below was my last response to Tod Tamberg's (if it is Tamberg) comments on the NCR's website after the article on Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating's talk at the SNAP convention which can be found under Accountability -
********************************
Intimidation, harassment, character assassination and the like continue to be the weapons of choice of many representing the institutional church in their PR campaigns to spin the truth.
Attacking advocates, whistle blowers and just about anyone who dares to support sexual abuse victims and/or their families is nothing new in the horrific abuse of authority surrounding the church's systemic and endemic sexual abuse problems and the accompanying scandal.
Sadly, Clericalism is alive and well in the institutional Roman Catholic Church.
That the Church is in need of serious reform, of the type mandated by Vatican Council II, is self evident and Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson spoke to that very fact so well at the California stops marking the conclusion of his U.S. speaking tour. I would recommend reading his book, "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church.
Relative to getting it right or wrong "when it comes to speaking about the details of sexual abuse in the church," I would recommend the following to Tod Tamberg for starters:
Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes by Thomas P. Doyle, A. W. Richard Sipe and Patrick J. Wall
Lead Us Not into Temptation - Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children by Jason Berry
God vs. The Gavel - Religion and the Rule of Law by Professor Marci A. Hamilton
Sacrilege - Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church by Leon J. Podles
**********
There are many non-sectarian groups concerned with the sexual abuse of children including:
NAPSAC, the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children - www.napsac.us
SNAP, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests - www.snapnetwork.org
This group has grown beyond its advocacy for victims of sexual abuse by priests, nuns, sisters, seminarians, deacons and others with an RC connection to include Jewish, Baptist and other denominational segments.
The National Survivors Advocates Coalition - http://www.nsacoalition.org/
The National Children's Advocacy Center out of Huntsville, Alabama - http://nationalcac.org/
And especially in the Roman Catholic Church, there is the group known as the Voice of the Faithful - www.votf.org founded as a result of the exposé in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts.
I should add that VOTF is is full accordance with the church's Canon Law. In other words, it is a legitimately formed group within the church irrespective of whether an individual bishop agrees that it should exist or not.
**********
As far as the church renewal and reform that was mandated by Vatical Council II, I would suggest Toward a Catholic Constitution - by Professor Leonard Swidler and the website for The American Catholic Council at - http://americancatholiccouncil.org/
Now is not the time for the faint of heart, too much has to be done in this bottom/up movement begun by the People of God.
And Tod, fear not, you seem to have already sunk "to the bottom of the sea." Perhaps caused by the millstones around the necks of so many of the sexual predators protected by the archdiocese along with their enablers has created a whirlpool effect and taken you down.
I pray that you and the leadership of the Church in California are converted and that sometime soon all victim/survivors of childhood sexual abuse, these "least of the Lord's little ones," will be the first ones the church thinks about and moves to protect.
God bless,
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
*********************************************
The servants of the Lord
The servants of the Lord (Bishops) are known for their quick response to the commands of authority when wielded by the Vatican Curia,eg, return of the Latin Mass.
Now let's see if they respond as quickly to Caesar!
Post new comment