BACK TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT DECISION OF 2 AUGUST 2017
SUPREME COURT DECISION OF 2 AUGUST 2017
There seems to be a lot of confusion among some people as to what the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017 was. What did the SCSC say in its ruling? The best thing to do now to clear up this confusion is to go back and look at the words of the decision itself. They are plain English. Any one reading on the Sixth Grade level can read and interpret the meaning of the words perfectly. Therefore, once again, here is the last page of the SCSC decision giving the three agreements (click on image for enlargement):
For the whole document, click on here .
We see here there are three decisions and they are conveniently numbered (1), (2), (3). Let's take them one at a time.
(1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I [Toal] would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations.
What does this say? It says that a majority (3 of the 5) of the justices agreed that eight plaintiffs in the case are owners of their local properties. They are owners because they did not accede to the Dennis Canon.
(Two of the eight plaintiffs were of the same parish, St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. Thus, there are seven parishes in all that the court recognized as owners of their properties.)
(2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon, a majority consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church.
What does this say? It says a majority (3 of the 5) of the justices agreed that 28 parishes are property of the Episcopal Church. This is so because they acceded to the Dennis Canon.
(3) with regard to Camp St. Christopher, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese, whereas Justice Kittredge and I would hold that the trustee corporation holds title for the disassociated diocese.
What does this say? It says a majority (3 of the 5) of the justices agreed that Camp St. Christopher is property of the corporation of trustees in the Episcopal diocese.
See? These three majority decisions are not hard to understand at all. They are not unclear. They are in fact as precise and clear as possible. Seven parishes get their independence. Twenty-eight parishes are property of the Episcopal Church. The Camp is property of the Episcopal diocesan corporate trustees. This is simple to read and to understand.
The ONLY thing that matters in a supreme court decision is the majority opinion. Nothing else matters after the decision is rendered.
The fact that each justice wrote a separate opinion: Irrelevant. Justices often write their own explanations. The fact that the justices may have differed in how they reached their conclusions: Irrelevant. Only the conclusion itself matters. So, how the justices reached what they reached is beside the point. Supreme court decisions stand only on the majority rulings. The fact that this was a split decision; Irrelevant. The vast majority of supreme court decisions are split.
The losing side petitioned for a rehearing. Denied. They asked SCOTUS for cert. Denied. This means the Aug. 2 decision is the law of the land. It cannot be changed or appealed.
The self-styled Anglicans are the losing side. So, why are they refusing to accept the decision and move on? As I see it, their last ditch ploy is somehow to get the circuit court judge to declare the SC decision as indecision and to rule himself on the property issue. This would give them a glimmer of hope of holding on to the properties in question. They know they have nothing left. Thus, they are using tactics of confusion and obfuscation to cloud over the decision in an attempt to render it unclear and indecisive and therefore impossible to implement. This is their only hope to keep the decision from being put into effect. When it is implemented, they lose possession of 29 parishes and the Camp.
The SCSC denied the Episcopal Church lawyers' petitions for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition. Does not this mean the SCSC is siding with the Anglicans? No. All it means is that the SCSC is leaving the matter to the circuit court judge. They sent him a Remittitur in November of 2017. It is his job to implement the SCSC decisions. If they had wanted the lower court to retry part or all of the case, they would have issued a Remand. They did not. They issued a Remittitur. This means it is the judge's job to carry out the majority decisions in the SCSC opinion.
Can the case be reopened and retried? My understanding is that the case is closed. The court decision, the denial of rehearing, the Remittitur, and the denial of cert mean that the lawsuit the secessionists brought against the Episcopal Church on January 4, 2013, is finished. The breakaways won 6 parishes. The Episcopal Church kept 29 parishes and the Camp.
Why has not Judge Edgar Dickson implemented the SCSC decision? That one we would have to ask of the judge. In fact, he has recognized the existence of the three orders on page 77 of the decision. In the second of the four hearings, he implemented the first, to recognize that seven parishes own their own property. No one knows why he has not implemented numbers two and three. The Church lawyers have repeatedly urged him to do so.
Simply put, we do not know why the circuit court has not implemented the last two orders of the SCSC decision in the nearly two and a half years since it received the Remittitur.
Back to the original point. The Anglicans are promoting the assertion that the SCSC decision is too unclear to be implemented. So, I say to everyone, read the actual words of the three rulings on the last page of the decision. They are perfectly clear to me and I think they are perfectly clear to everyone and that is the problem. The losers can read these three orders as well as anyone. They are desperate to find some how, some way, to hold on to the 29 parishes and the Camp. The pertinent question is why Judge Dickson has allowed them to get away with this for 26 months and counting.
In fact, the game is over. The breakaways lost. It is just a matter of time before the lower court does its job and returns the properties to the Episcopal Church. No amount of spin, no amount of confusion and obfuscation will change the ultimate outcome of this. The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled.
See? These three majority decisions are not hard to understand at all. They are not unclear. They are in fact as precise and clear as possible. Seven parishes get their independence. Twenty-eight parishes are property of the Episcopal Church. The Camp is property of the Episcopal diocesan corporate trustees. This is simple to read and to understand.
The ONLY thing that matters in a supreme court decision is the majority opinion. Nothing else matters after the decision is rendered.
The fact that each justice wrote a separate opinion: Irrelevant. Justices often write their own explanations. The fact that the justices may have differed in how they reached their conclusions: Irrelevant. Only the conclusion itself matters. So, how the justices reached what they reached is beside the point. Supreme court decisions stand only on the majority rulings. The fact that this was a split decision; Irrelevant. The vast majority of supreme court decisions are split.
The losing side petitioned for a rehearing. Denied. They asked SCOTUS for cert. Denied. This means the Aug. 2 decision is the law of the land. It cannot be changed or appealed.
The self-styled Anglicans are the losing side. So, why are they refusing to accept the decision and move on? As I see it, their last ditch ploy is somehow to get the circuit court judge to declare the SC decision as indecision and to rule himself on the property issue. This would give them a glimmer of hope of holding on to the properties in question. They know they have nothing left. Thus, they are using tactics of confusion and obfuscation to cloud over the decision in an attempt to render it unclear and indecisive and therefore impossible to implement. This is their only hope to keep the decision from being put into effect. When it is implemented, they lose possession of 29 parishes and the Camp.
The SCSC denied the Episcopal Church lawyers' petitions for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition. Does not this mean the SCSC is siding with the Anglicans? No. All it means is that the SCSC is leaving the matter to the circuit court judge. They sent him a Remittitur in November of 2017. It is his job to implement the SCSC decisions. If they had wanted the lower court to retry part or all of the case, they would have issued a Remand. They did not. They issued a Remittitur. This means it is the judge's job to carry out the majority decisions in the SCSC opinion.
Can the case be reopened and retried? My understanding is that the case is closed. The court decision, the denial of rehearing, the Remittitur, and the denial of cert mean that the lawsuit the secessionists brought against the Episcopal Church on January 4, 2013, is finished. The breakaways won 6 parishes. The Episcopal Church kept 29 parishes and the Camp.
Why has not Judge Edgar Dickson implemented the SCSC decision? That one we would have to ask of the judge. In fact, he has recognized the existence of the three orders on page 77 of the decision. In the second of the four hearings, he implemented the first, to recognize that seven parishes own their own property. No one knows why he has not implemented numbers two and three. The Church lawyers have repeatedly urged him to do so.
Simply put, we do not know why the circuit court has not implemented the last two orders of the SCSC decision in the nearly two and a half years since it received the Remittitur.
Back to the original point. The Anglicans are promoting the assertion that the SCSC decision is too unclear to be implemented. So, I say to everyone, read the actual words of the three rulings on the last page of the decision. They are perfectly clear to me and I think they are perfectly clear to everyone and that is the problem. The losers can read these three orders as well as anyone. They are desperate to find some how, some way, to hold on to the 29 parishes and the Camp. The pertinent question is why Judge Dickson has allowed them to get away with this for 26 months and counting.
In fact, the game is over. The breakaways lost. It is just a matter of time before the lower court does its job and returns the properties to the Episcopal Church. No amount of spin, no amount of confusion and obfuscation will change the ultimate outcome of this. The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled.
