25 MARCH --- NOTES

FLORENCE, SC. 25 March. 
I attended the memorial service for Dolores Miller on last Saturday. It was a beautiful and moving remembrance for a remarkable person. The Church was overflowing with her many friends who came from far and wide.

I expect to attend the court hearing on Wednesday, the 27th, in Orangeburg SC and will make a report here as soon as possible afterwards, probably by noon. 

There are two legal matters at hand now. The first is the hearing on Wed. Just last week, Judge Edgar Dickson suddenly announced he would hold a hearing in his courtroom on three motions before him:   1---the breakaway diocesan (DSC) suit on Betterments, 2---the DSC motion for complex case, and 3---the Church (TEC/TECSC) motion to dismiss DSC's Betterments suit. He set the date as March 27.

In the Betterments suit, the DSC lawyers are asking TEC for reimbursement for the improvements made on the properties of the 29 parishes in question. Betterments assumes TEC owns the properties. DSC argued in the last hearing that TEC does not own the properties of the 29 parishes. It will be interesting to see how the DSC lawyers argue opposite points.

The second legal matter at hand is TEC/TECSC's petition to the SC Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus. (See blog piece of 21 March). Apparently, there was no connection in the timing of these two events. It was coincidental that they occurred a few days apart.

DSC has published a response to TEC/TECSC's petition for Mandamus. It is a note from the Rev. Jim Lewis and may be found at www.kendallharmon.net . DSC is trying to dismiss the significance of it. Such an effort will not work. This petition is highly significant.

In fact, the petition is the deciding point in the whole, long matter of the ownership of the 29 parishes. How the SCSC responds to the petition will determine the outcome of this issue. It is anything but insignificant.

One question I have about the petition is whether one justice can issue a Writ of Mandamus; or, would it require a majority of the justices? I have asked numerous lawyers. No one knows for sure but the unanimous opinion was that even if one justice could issue it, he would have to have the support of the majority.  One should remember that Justice Kaye Hearn is recused in this matter.

This leaves four justices to consider the petition for the Writ. Chief Justice Donald Beatty was the "swing" vote that gave the majority to the Church side in the SCSC decision of Aug. 2  2017. Justice Kittredge voted against the church even though he recognized the authority of the Dennis Canon. There are two new justices on the SCSC bench. Their positions are unknown.

In my opinion, how the SCSC responds to the petition will depend on how the four justices regard this case, as fundamentally a judicial or social issue. If judicial, they will assert the authority of the SCSC over the state courts and will order Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. This will reinforce the integrity and authority of the SCSC and the whole state court system.

If the four justices see this whole matter before them as primarily a social issue, they may respond differently. Social conservatives generally oppose equality for and social inclusion of open homosexuals and women. This was the direct cause of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina. The breakaway diocese's raison d'etre is to reject and oppose equality for and inclusion of open homosexuals in the church and to keep women from offices of authority in the church. If the four justices decide that they have to support this socially conservative stance, they may decide to reject TEC/TECSC's petition as a way of overturning the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. If so, they would be allowing Dickson to side with DSC and to overturn the SCSC ruling of Aug. 2, 2017. This, however would be setting a very dangerous precedent, something they should understand.

So, it seems to me it boils down to whether the four justices see the overriding issue at hand as judicial stability or social stability. At this point, there is no way to know how they will lean. We will just have to wait and see. Of course, it is possible that Dickson could suddenly rule on his own and order the implementation of the SCSC decision. This would save face.

One should bear in mind that judges and justices in the state courts of South Carolina are all elected by the state legislature. This means all judges/justices are in some sense political appointees. As everyone knows, SC is a conservative state with a solid conservative Republican majority in the legislature and state government. To be sure, no one should project this ahead because the state supreme court, much to my surprise, actually came down on the side of the "liberal" Episcopal Church. It could happen again.

I expect to return on mid-day Wednesday with a report on the hearing, unless, of course the hearing is postponed or cancelled. 

Ron Caldwell