NYT/AP: Judge's Ruling Upholds Air Force Academy on Religious Issue

Ruling Upholds Air Force on Religious Issue
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 (AP) — A federal judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit against the Air Force that contended that evangelical Christian values were being illegally pushed on academy cadets.

An academy graduate said he would appeal the decision by the judge, James A. Parker of Federal District Court in Albuquerque. “Our fight is far from over,” said the graduate, Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque.

The case was brought by Mr. Weinstein and other Air Force Academy graduates who contended that a military chaplain had violated their right to religious freedom by urging cadets to attend Christian services or face “the fires of hell.” That incident, the group asserted, reflected a broader policy of efforts to evangelize members of the Air Force.

But Judge Parker said the graduates could not claim that their First Amendment rights were violated, because they no longer attended the academy. Moreover, he said, the group failed to give specific examples of which cadets had been harmed, or when....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/washington/28academy.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162098019-SPWiHe5BqiZlOyaji6+OXw

If it is, appealing should work. If not...

Everything our country was against in its formation. Damn the religious right for their oppression on freedom of or from religion.

That's completely insane!

"Well, I'm sorry... you cannot sue your employer for unfair termination because you no longer work there".

"...the group failed to give specific examples of which cadets had been harmed..."

I would think the people bringing the lawsuit would qualify as the specific examples of which cadets had been harmed, as they are graduates.

You can also sue for a hostile workplace, even after you leave. I've done it and own.

The argument used might have had more moral force. However, it is legal precedent which caried more weight in the courts.

Under the US Constitution the Federal Courts can only take cases where they is a clear "Controversy" what that means is BOTH sides MUST have some sort of ACTUAL Legal conflict to litigate, it can not (at least in Theory) be a made up case. Thus to bring an action you must show YOU PERSONALLY have been harmed. If you can NOT show a PERSONAL HARM you have no STANDING to bring the action. Thus once you graduate from the Academy you are NO LONGER affected by the Academy's policies and thus have NO STANDING to bring any action (A current academy member would have standings, but from the article the only litigates were FORMER Academy Members NOT present Academy Members).

Now the courts will get around a standings problem if they want to. The best example of getting around the Standing issue was Roe vs Wade. In Roe vs Wade the Plaintiff was ruled to have standing even through the fetus she wanted to abort had gone to term. The problem is the court prefers to kick-out cases where the party has no legal standing let you have a case where one side makes BOTH sides of the Argument to make sure the side it wants is the better argument. Thus most time the courts want BOTH sides to have a personal interest in the case. Thus you must have a true controversy to have standing. That is what the Court appears to have ruled here, basically the parties who brought the action are NOT suffering from any present harm and made no complaints when they had been in the Academy, thus they have no Standing to bring an action TODAY.