DEFIANCE
Many of you readers have written to me today (and thank you for writing) about the diocesan responses to the SCOTUS denial. So, here are my initial thoughts about them:
Both dioceses have responded to SCOTUS's denial of cert today. The Church diocesan statement was, naturally, positive and desirous of ways to carry out the state supreme court decision. Find it here . The independent diocesan response was quite the opposite. Find it here . In a word, it was defiant, and, I thought, a bit irrational.
Both dioceses have responded to SCOTUS's denial of cert today. The Church diocesan statement was, naturally, positive and desirous of ways to carry out the state supreme court decision. Find it here . The independent diocesan response was quite the opposite. Find it here . In a word, it was defiant, and, I thought, a bit irrational.
The key paragraph in the DSC statement is this:
The Diocese of South Carolina will now return to our state courts, where the case has been remitted to the Dorchester Courthouse where it originated. An element of TEC's argument for the United States Supreme Court to deny our petition was the "fractured" nature of the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling. Constitutional issues aside, the Diocese believes the conflicted nature of the current State Supreme Court ruling is virtually unenforceable as written. Interpretation and implementation of that ruling, given its five separate opinions, with no unified legal theory even among the plurality of the court, means there are still significant questions to resolve.
First, let us go back over the basic facts:
1. On August 2, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher remained under trust control of the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese.
2. On November 17, the SCSC denied DSC's petition for a rehearing.
3. On Feb. 9, 2018, DSC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
4. On June 7, 2018, SCOTUS denied DSC's petition for cert.
5. This left the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, as the law.
6. On May 16, 2018, TEC/TECSC filed, in the circuit court, "Petition for Execution...and for the Appointment of a Special Master." This asked the court to enact the SCSC decision of Aug. 2 returning the 29 parishes and the Camp to TEC/TECSC control and to do so under a manager appointed by the court.
7. On June 11, 2018, DSC issued a statement that it rejected the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, and would challenge it in the courts: We plan to continue to press both to their logical conclusion, even if that requires a second appearance before the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Steve Skardon suggested (find it here ) that the ultimate ploy of DSC in this, to get back into the state supreme court on the assumption that the more conservative composition of the court, with two new justices (replacing Pleicones and Toal), would move the court to the DSC side. This is entirely plausible. But, the problem is, the court has already heard the case and refused a rehearing. Why could they hear it again?
The idea that this is all about getting back into the state supreme court seems completely believable to me. What I do not quite understand is DSC's attack today on the state supreme court decision that is now the law of the land. The operative words, above, are "fractured," "conflicted," "unenforceable," and "no unified legal theory." Reminding everyone I am not a lawyer, I see this attack on the SCSC decision as absurd, ridiculous, and hysterical. It would be laughable if it were not so strange.
I went back over the Aug. 2 decision and I see no real evidence of any of this wild claim. In fact it was a 3-2 decision, a clear-cut majority ruling. Under our court system, the majority rules. That is that. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the law of the land. Pure and simple. It is not any of the outrageous words DSC frantically employed today. In fact, on the salient principle of the Dennis Canon, four of the five justices were in complete agreement. Footnote 27: Four justices agree that the Dennis Canon created an enforceable trust as envisioned in Jones. There is no "fracture," no "conflict" here. And, in fact, the decision is clearly enforceable; there are no questions to resolve about the parishes and the Camp. In my view, DSC's desperate claims are just off-the-wall. I see no connection between them and reality.
Besides, all of DSC's statement today is a matter of opinion. What difference does that make now? The game is over. The SCSC decision is the law of the land regardless of anyone's opinion of it. That is the meaning of the SCOTUS decision to deny cert. What criticisms DSC may have of the SCSC decision now are moot under the law.
There is a legitimate question for us to ask here. Why is DSC defying the law now? The law is going to be enforced. They cannot avoid it. They can delay it, however, with creative legal maneuvers; and they is what DSC is doing now. Delay would give DSC more time to prepare alternate meeting places for congregations in exile, would give time for more demonization of the Episcopal Church to build up the congregations leaving the buildings, and maybe even keep contributions flowing to legal funds under the mistaken assumption of more good legal avenues. All of this, on top of the outlandish idea they can return to SCSC, would make their action today almost rational.
The Hail Mary pass failed. So, now they want to argue with the referees that they never threw the pass in the first place? DSC appeal to SCOTUS. If it thought the decision they were appealing was wrong, why did they appeal it?
It all smacks of desperation and disingenuity. But then, to mix metaphors, when you have no cards left to play...
The two dioceses are convening this week for strategy planning sessions. The Church diocese meets tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. The independent side meets Thursday. Perhaps we will get a clearer picture of where the parties go from here. Stay tuned.
Steve Skardon suggested (find it here ) that the ultimate ploy of DSC in this, to get back into the state supreme court on the assumption that the more conservative composition of the court, with two new justices (replacing Pleicones and Toal), would move the court to the DSC side. This is entirely plausible. But, the problem is, the court has already heard the case and refused a rehearing. Why could they hear it again?
The idea that this is all about getting back into the state supreme court seems completely believable to me. What I do not quite understand is DSC's attack today on the state supreme court decision that is now the law of the land. The operative words, above, are "fractured," "conflicted," "unenforceable," and "no unified legal theory." Reminding everyone I am not a lawyer, I see this attack on the SCSC decision as absurd, ridiculous, and hysterical. It would be laughable if it were not so strange.
I went back over the Aug. 2 decision and I see no real evidence of any of this wild claim. In fact it was a 3-2 decision, a clear-cut majority ruling. Under our court system, the majority rules. That is that. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the law of the land. Pure and simple. It is not any of the outrageous words DSC frantically employed today. In fact, on the salient principle of the Dennis Canon, four of the five justices were in complete agreement. Footnote 27: Four justices agree that the Dennis Canon created an enforceable trust as envisioned in Jones. There is no "fracture," no "conflict" here. And, in fact, the decision is clearly enforceable; there are no questions to resolve about the parishes and the Camp. In my view, DSC's desperate claims are just off-the-wall. I see no connection between them and reality.
Besides, all of DSC's statement today is a matter of opinion. What difference does that make now? The game is over. The SCSC decision is the law of the land regardless of anyone's opinion of it. That is the meaning of the SCOTUS decision to deny cert. What criticisms DSC may have of the SCSC decision now are moot under the law.
There is a legitimate question for us to ask here. Why is DSC defying the law now? The law is going to be enforced. They cannot avoid it. They can delay it, however, with creative legal maneuvers; and they is what DSC is doing now. Delay would give DSC more time to prepare alternate meeting places for congregations in exile, would give time for more demonization of the Episcopal Church to build up the congregations leaving the buildings, and maybe even keep contributions flowing to legal funds under the mistaken assumption of more good legal avenues. All of this, on top of the outlandish idea they can return to SCSC, would make their action today almost rational.
The Hail Mary pass failed. So, now they want to argue with the referees that they never threw the pass in the first place? DSC appeal to SCOTUS. If it thought the decision they were appealing was wrong, why did they appeal it?
It all smacks of desperation and disingenuity. But then, to mix metaphors, when you have no cards left to play...
The two dioceses are convening this week for strategy planning sessions. The Church diocese meets tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. The independent side meets Thursday. Perhaps we will get a clearer picture of where the parties go from here. Stay tuned.
