Indiana has joined the fight to reverse the holding by U.S. District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin that the
federal law providing for a National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause.
The amicus
brief before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by the Texas Attorney General and others, argues the ruling calls
into question the traditional state practice of issuing proclamations acknowledging their residents may choose to pray together
during difficult times, and state proclamations issued in conjunction with the National Day of Prayer.
The brief also says that providing for a day of prayer is constitutional because the law doesn’t require the engagement
in any religious activity of any kind by any person or governmental body. It also calls into question whether the ruling by
the Wisconsin District Court finds Memorial Day to be unconstitutional as well because it was originally enacted as a day
for people to pray for peace. The National Day of Prayer statute was enacted in 1952.
Indiana is one of 29 states that signed the Texas amicus brief. Other nearby state signers include Illinois, Michigan, and
Ohio.
The suit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation - a Madison, Wisc.-based group working for separation of church
and state - against President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, challenging the authority of the
president to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer. Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled in April that 36
U.S.C. Section 119 is unconstitutional.
“I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those
who pray. That is unfortunate,” she wrote in the opinion. “A determination that the government may not endorse
a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination.
Rather, it is part of the effort to ‘carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest
extent possible in a pluralistic society.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882 (O'Connor, J., concurring).’”
Oral arguments in the appeal have not been set, according to the court docket.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.