tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post518353937508891635..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: Happy Birthday, Mr. JeffersonAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-83100667306231281222010-04-18T13:58:08.876-04:002010-04-18T13:58:08.876-04:00Scout - Having a little fun with DavidH's logi...Scout - Having a little fun with DavidH's logic ... following his line of reasoning to Steven.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-75694553409654118992010-04-18T08:38:03.150-04:002010-04-18T08:38:03.150-04:00Kevin - What am I wrong about (no doubt a great ma...Kevin - What am I wrong about (no doubt a great many things - but it would help to have some specifics)?<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-33123724863514574342010-04-16T14:43:32.072-04:002010-04-16T14:43:32.072-04:00Geez, Kevin, way to be overly contentious. Many o...Geez, Kevin, way to be overly contentious. Many opinions are spin. Nor am I entirely opposed to spin. Those who read it just need to be aware that it is spin. If it makes you feel better to label my posts as such, be my guest. I don't really care. <br /><br />Also, this is the Internet. So if you want to believe Steven's erroneous legal suggestion -- that 57-9 will just keep on swirling around at the center of this litigation, and the congregations can just keep filing lawsuits and having new trials on the same claims and issues -- again, be my guest.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-68537299227264126802010-04-16T10:30:08.642-04:002010-04-16T10:30:08.642-04:00@DavidH - So when Steven gives an opinion (which h...@DavidH - So when Steven gives an opinion (which he shared the reason for it) you declare it "spin" but when you make an attack on another reasoning and insert a confident counter point without any backup it's merely stating an opinion?<br /><br />Scout - If I may please adopt the logic of DavidH - You're wrong.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-45805558768904952862010-04-16T08:51:51.979-04:002010-04-16T08:51:51.979-04:00Kevin - The Falls Church has all those items, but ...Kevin - The Falls Church has all those items, but they are being used (without permission)by people who left the church and have not yet released the buildings, and property. All the clergy also have departed. That TFC had to find replacements until property issues are resolved does not make them a creature "set up" by the diocese, except, I guess, to the extent that The Falls Church has always been a church "set up" by the diocese. Clergy in the Episcopal Church is always obtained through the Diocese, so I don't think that's a matter of any significance in this context. I guess I'm relieved to find out that BB's reference is to the Falls Church (Episcopal), and not yet a third Falls Church. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-76378437428895549672010-04-15T21:30:36.530-04:002010-04-15T21:30:36.530-04:00Kevin, I didn't attempt to provide justificati...Kevin, I didn't attempt to provide justification for a reason. All anyone has are opinions at this point -- there are no proofs to be had. <br /><br />But if you'd like an explanation, here you go. What's about to happen is that Virginia's highest court is going to rule on the meaning and, possibly, the constitutionality of Va Code 57-9. They are the last word on the meaning of the statute. Period. If the CANA folks didn't prove what they needed to prove, then they don't just get to keep trying. So either the 57-9 lawsuits end in favor of the CANA folks or they end in favor of TEC and the Diocese of Virginia. The end of 57-9 either way (with respect to this litigation).<br /><br />Also, aside from Steven's hypothesis, the statutory focus of the justices could easily mean that they intend to interpret the statute to avoid constitutional issues, which would mean as TEC and the Diocese of Virginia say.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-6526203230454361752010-04-15T18:19:14.755-04:002010-04-15T18:19:14.755-04:00What's most depressing about this is that if t...What's most depressing about this is that if the ABC had made a statement <b>declaring TEC's actions as a church-dividing heresy, throwing them out, and recognising ACNA/CANA as the replacement province</b> then the arguments in the court would have been all over and ACNA would not only have the property of the Virginia 11 - but <b>all TEC"s property in any state that accepted Virginia's precedent</b><br /><br /><br />When we think about primates meetings or dithering or "dialogue" or "negotiation" and especially when we think about the ABC - always remember that. <br /><br />This much is clear from the questions from the bench.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-89733039820405609882010-04-15T09:17:59.437-04:002010-04-15T09:17:59.437-04:00I was not there, but was the argument that CANA is...I was not there, but was the argument that CANA is a branch of TEC, or that there was a division within the episcopal church, with the CANA churches splitting off and joining another branch of the Anglican Communion?<br /><br />Though I'm not sure this line of reasoning is terribly significant. I seem to recall the trial judge relying primarily on the dictionary to determine what words mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-22514905112395797522010-04-15T07:35:19.027-04:002010-04-15T07:35:19.027-04:00@Scout - BB term would be accurate to describe the...@Scout - BB term would be accurate to describe the group meeting in the Fall Church Presbyterian fellowship hall, because the diocese did have to set them up, some of the people may have left the larger body across the street, but none of the clergy and thus they are a mission church. Unlike the other splits where there is a division of assets (in my use, including clergy and staff), the group had no clergy and no staff and only a few liturgical items (which very important to a service, technically not that expensive) and this diocese had to set up the administrative structures and clergy, everything for this group of people. Not three, there are two, but BB would be accurate in her use of the term (if DioVA did nothing, they'd most likely disband).Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-3176199599077556382010-04-15T00:17:11.920-04:002010-04-15T00:17:11.920-04:00PS - in BB's account there is reference to &qu...PS - in BB's account there is reference to "an Episcopal congregation set up by the Diocese." In the context of the post, it sounds like it may be in Falls Church. Does this mean that there are now three Falls Churches? There is the Falls Church, the Falls Church composed of the departing group, and a Falls Church that was "set up" by the Diocese? Why would the Diocese want another Episcopal Church in the same Parish? Why wouldn't someone like me, who worships at the Falls Church, know about the third church? It's all very confusing. Maybe it was somewhere else.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-44383183636511183162010-04-15T00:11:33.345-04:002010-04-15T00:11:33.345-04:00those who have suggested that it's difficult t...those who have suggested that it's difficult to predict a result from the exchanges in an appellate courtroom have a valid point. I've read these things quite incorrectly in the past, and I wager I've spent more time in front of appeals courts than anyone commenting here. Nonetheless, one can pick up on some elements of the decision-making process. Here, the relative emphasis on the components of the division statute, instead of the constitutional arguments, either indicates that the court wants to avoid a constitutional disposition (and courts should avoid constitutional dispositions if there are other grounds on which they can rule) or that, as Steven suggests, they do not have sufficient numbers on the panel to invalidate the statute for constitutional reasons, or that they are totally convinced that the statute passes constitutional muster. I think those are the only three possibilities. So they hone in on whether the elements of the statute are satisfied. <br /><br />My sense is that they were not buying that the CANA crowd was reacting to a "division" within the church that created a "branch." Johnsen's argument that CANA is a branch of the Episcopal Church for purposes of the statute, but for no other purposes seemed to fall flat (as it well should). I don't think anyone here on either side of the issue views the CANA departees as branches of the Episcopal Church. The position of the Episcopal Church (and the Diocese, but not as central to the latter's argument) is that the "division" that the statute contemplates is one which the polity of the church agrees upon and establishes. That did not happen here. Those who left just left without any process at the Church level. I think that concept was getting some traction with the court yesterday. Knowing what it all means as to the ultimate decision is a few weeks away. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-7475138326014846412010-04-14T23:17:27.157-04:002010-04-14T23:17:27.157-04:00DavidH
Pot & Kettles??
"I think it'...DavidH<br /><br />Pot & Kettles??<br /><br />"I think it's safe to conclude that the opinion will mean the end of 57-9 one way or the other (in Virginia courts, anyway)."<br /><br />Why is it safe to conclude? What is the basis of your conclusion? We have Steven's opinion that amount of time spent is a indicator he used, however for you all we have is an attack, declaring "spin" then a jump to a conclusion without any justification.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00261766465382455822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-23443515677822587312010-04-14T21:16:02.794-04:002010-04-14T21:16:02.794-04:00Steven, you do a good job in the spin department, ...Steven, you do a good job in the spin department, but that is far from the only reasonable interpretation of the justices' focus. I don't think that's even the most likely interpretation. And although I do think the Supreme Court of Virginia's opinion is not likely to end this litigation altogether, I think it's safe to conclude that the opinion will mean the end of 57-9 one way or the other (in Virginia courts, anyway).DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-63985636906797208262010-04-14T13:08:55.152-04:002010-04-14T13:08:55.152-04:00Have been thinking of you and praying for you all ...Have been thinking of you and praying for you all week. Thanks for the update.Sarah Boyle Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02926451548743350125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-71390887157178250912010-04-14T12:08:42.773-04:002010-04-14T12:08:42.773-04:00As a general rule, I don't think you can tell ...As a general rule, I don't think you can tell much about the possible outcome from the questions judges ask.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-37723832771143941172010-04-14T09:50:15.317-04:002010-04-14T09:50:15.317-04:00The fact that the justices did not dwell on the 57...The fact that the justices did not dwell on the 57-9 constitutionality question suggests that they believe the law survives the constitutional challenge. The justices instead focused on the factual questions of whether a division occurred and whether CANA is a branch of that division. The record at trial reflects the state of TEC as of 2007, but much has transpired since then that gives even more weight to the division argument (e.g., disaffiliation of whole dioceses from TEC, ACNA, ++Duncan, etc.). If the justices were to reverse and remand on the grounds that the trial court did not sufficiently find the existence of a division, this may be an opportunity for introduction of further evidence or for the ADV parishes simply to re-file their 57-9 petitions, based upon the most recent developments. At this stage, extending the litigation clock would probably be more to TEC's and the Diocese's disadvantage as they appear to be low on cash according to recent news reports.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-18629814597253692492010-04-14T09:34:03.746-04:002010-04-14T09:34:03.746-04:00A friend who serves an ACNA parish told me that he...A friend who serves an ACNA parish told me that he has yet to meet someone who walked away from buildings who wasn't glad they did.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-28994492990677356742010-04-14T04:30:46.341-04:002010-04-14T04:30:46.341-04:00BB - don't worry if the buildings are lost.......BB - don't worry if the buildings are lost....we can find other rain shelters! Important to keep all this court and property stuff in perspective i.e. we ultimately don't need the buildings....maybe easy for me to say as I am not (yet) in your position but I think this is a liberating thought which I hope encourages you allLondonernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-90090493807479148772010-04-14T00:19:26.579-04:002010-04-14T00:19:26.579-04:00As we said earlier, Anon, you are free to post you...As we said earlier, Anon, you are free to post your own insights into your experience at the hearing today - but please be gentle. Your stories are important - but kindness in telling them at this point is greatly appreciated.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-78757666109328389332010-04-13T23:26:48.599-04:002010-04-13T23:26:48.599-04:00Sorry, anon, but if you don't know why Hagrid ...Sorry, anon, but if you don't know why Hagrid keeps tossing you out the door - please read the posting again. Feel free to share your observations of the day - but no mean stuff. Tearing down someone else's opinion to elevate your own does not make Hagrid a happy giant.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-46829321781899440362010-04-13T21:22:05.062-04:002010-04-13T21:22:05.062-04:00No oral argument outline ever survives contact wit...No oral argument outline ever survives contact with the court. This was what lawyers refer to as a "hot bench." Interesting to me that the constitutional arguments didn't get a lot of time. Indicates that this is going off on whether the facts fit into the Division Statute's terminology on such items as "division" and "branch". This probably gives a little encouragement to the Diocese. Court can't rule against them without grappling with the constitutional issues. If it's a matter of statutory interpretation, court can go their way. If the disposition swings on interpretation of Virginia statute, it will be nearly impossible to get it up to the Supreme Court of the United States. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-26108684207278211632010-04-13T21:08:58.523-04:002010-04-13T21:08:58.523-04:00Hmm, 7:15 comment showing BabyBlue to have been wr...Hmm, 7:15 comment showing BabyBlue to have been wrong on several points now mysteriously gone. Censorship isn't exactly the way to honor Jefferson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-33401813705084092742010-04-13T19:13:29.015-04:002010-04-13T19:13:29.015-04:00You have done a good service to all of us, Baby Bl...You have done a good service to all of us, Baby Blue-- on both sides of the ecclesiastical aisle. Thoughtful, measured, kind, hopeful, humble... it is hard to do better than that. I honor your vision and voice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-2916929586109971482010-04-13T18:41:41.805-04:002010-04-13T18:41:41.805-04:00BB, not surprised that the judges jumped right in ...BB, not surprised that the judges jumped right in with questions as each side began to make its argument - that's the normal course of events in an oral argument, especially when the judges are engaged and interested in the dispute before them. Thanks for updating us today. <br />-- BJM3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-33490008637426039672010-04-13T17:55:54.068-04:002010-04-13T17:55:54.068-04:00Steven, that's not exactly right. The Supreme...Steven, that's not exactly right. The Supreme Court has 7 justices. Goodwyn, Lemons, and Mims recused themselves. One of the senior justices (Lacy) joined the remaining four to make the group of five that heard these appeals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com