Statement of Boy Scouts of America: Court Rules Boy Scout Jamboree to Go Forward

[Hunt 11]

"Hunt, the amount isn't relevant; it was cited as one example of military spending that was unrelated to military readiness. You seem to think that constitutional violations that are small enough are somehow OK."

 

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said, and what I meant, is that if there were small improper expenditures, that would not require the entire event to be prohibited. Furthermore, what I said and meant, which you just don't seem to get, is that in the context of $8,000,000 of appropriate expenditures, an improper expenditure of $6,000 is insignificant. That doesn't make the expenditure OK--but it is such a minor detail in the overall context that no reasonable person would spend much time worrying about it. It would be like somebody driving 55.001 mph in a 55 mph zone. Wrong? Yes. Worth engaging the majestic machinery of the law? Not so much.

What I also said is that the plaintiffs made a tactical error in highlighting this particular example, because it made them appear petty. I notice you don't highlight any other improper expenditures--was this the largest one?

 

"And the circuit court didn't rule on the case on its merits, they said the plaintiffs didn't have standing. They did not reverse the original ruling."

 

Well, in fact the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for dismissal--that means the lower court's ruling has no precedential effect. But the Seventh Circuit also made it clear how it would have ruled on the merits--it would have reversed on those grounds too. It just didn't have to.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, I didn't put words in your mouth, I stated that that's what you seemed to be saying. It still seems that way to me.

 

No, I don't know what other improper expenditures exist, the US military hasn't given me a list, so I don't really have any way of knowing.

 

And finally, this ruling was remanded only on standing, and only 3 judges of the full circuit court indicated how they might rule, so that's no guarantee of what the full circuit might rule. And no, I don't think first amendment violations are petty.

[Hunt 11]

I never meant to suggest that a First Amendment violation is petty. Rather, I meant to say that people who perseverate about a minor detail in a much broader context appear petty to most reasonable observers. But people with extreme views can't seem to understand how they undermine their own credibility by focusing on those details and not the big picture. People like that are never satisfied, even if they get the vast majority of what they want.

[Hunt 11]

I just read the ACLU's brief to the Seventh Circuit (http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/winkler.pdf), and they had a problem when talking about the expenditures. To get the relief they wanted (having the Jamboree Act declared unconstitutional), they had to argue that all or the vast majority of the expenditures had no military purpose. Although they pointed out some specific expenditures (including the cookie dough), their real argument was that the whole thing lacked a military purpose. This part of the brief, however, is extremely weak. It's certainly inadequate to counter the military's own claims that it sees training and recruitment purposes for supporting the Jamboree. For example, the cookie dough (plus $65,000 for mementoes) went to an area of the Jamboree called "Army Adventure." Gee, do you think that might have had a recruiting purpose?

Also, ACLU's brief grossly overstates the role BSA's religious elements play in the program, further hurting the credibility of their argument.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Judge Manning's ruling didn't accept those reasons, but she still found the legislation creating support for the jamboree to be unconstitutional, because it was only for a religious organization.

[Hunt 11]

Take another look at the Seventh Circuit's opinion: http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Seventh%20Circuit%20opinion%2005-3451.pdf. Look at page 16, where it says: "Even assuming that it is correct to characterize the BSA as a 'religious' organization, this statute is for the purpose of assisting the military in persuading a new generation to join its ranks and in building good will. This is a secular and valid purpose." Despite the fact that they end up deciding on standing grounds, the opinion nevertheless trashes every other argument ACLU (and the district court) made. I would also add that the Seventh Circuit opinion was written by Diane Wood, a Clinton Appointee. The Seventh Circuit has 11 Republican appointees, and 4 Democratic appointees (of whom Wood is one). There is no chance the full panel would reverse this decision--ACLU would be nuts to even try. Their chances at the Supreme Court aren't much better--and they'd be taking the risk that the Supremes would take up the concurring judge's opinion, and severely restrict taxpayer standing. If ACLU is smart, they'll declare victory in getting BSA out of the public schools, and go on to something else.