Jump to content

Talk:Winkler v. Rumsfeld/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board Trustees

What city and federal agencies got sued in this case? See Procedural History on pages 17-18 here.[1] Notice the statement on page 18, "Plaintiffs also asserted Establishment Clause claims against the Department of Defense itself and the Department of HUD, but the district court dismissed those claims because those agencies are not proper parties." --Jagz 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentnece: "The majority of the expense is for the pay and travel costs associated with the military personnel performing the DOD public relations and military training activities at the jamboree."

I'm not sure this is true-- and the very least, it isn't universally agreed to be true. the ACLU brief says,"Most significantly, the vast majority of the DOD’s Jamboree spending is used to hire temporary civilian labor, and to pay for civilian goods." Is there a source that says the majority fo the spending is for the military personel?

I also tweaked an earlier sentence, because we can't NPOV say that the activities are just "PR and training". I think a very good argument can be made that that's what they are, but the whole case hinges upon whether the jamboree is just a "pr/recruiting/training exercise" or whether it's also a "governmental support". Certainly, a very good case can be made that is just a PR/recruiting/training and we should mention that argument, but we should avoid classifiying it as that ourselves. --Alecmconroy 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. The DOJ appelate brief states that is the bulk of the expense and how DOD budgets it. I would think the folks who actually write the checks have the most accurate information. GCW50 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm dense and/or lazy. What part of the brief talks about the specific budget? I tried to find it, but it's 60-some pages, so I confess I didn't read it all. I did find this quote, but it doesn't specify what proportions go to what:
"For the 2001 Jamboree, the Army budgeted and spent approximately $8 million in Operations and Maintenance over four years. These funds were used to pay not only for services provided in support of the event itself, but also for the costs of transporting and billeting the population of soldiers brought to Fort A.P. Hill to perform services during the event."
Is there a more detailed budget somewhere in there that directly contradicts plaintiff's brief.
--Alecmconroy 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "pay", which was my error It's travel and "billeting." And the authorizing DOD policy prohibits any expenditure that doesn't have a military benefit. From the DOJ brief:

"Pursuant to Department of Defense ("DOD") policy, any and all funds spent in support of the National Scout Jamboree must have a military benefit, and no funds may be spent on commercial items or services that solely benefit the Boy Scouts. See Irizarry Decl., ¶ 15 (Sep. App. 72).

For example, the cookie dough example in the plaintiff's brief, that's a PR gimmie to get the kids to the "Army Action" PR area just like Army giving key chains at a drag race where their car is racing. The pediatric medicines are used in the medical treatment training given by the medics. BTW, the military buys tons of pediatric medicines for it's daily use anyway; I used to work for a pharmaceutical company. Pediatric medicine is key component of stability operations overseas. So it all has training value. GCW50 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. The only problem with using that sentence is it doesn't talk about the "majority" of the $8 million going to pay. Based on the DOJ brief, we don't know what percent goes to paying for the troop and what percent goes to other things. That said, we know that SOME portion of the $8 mil is going to pay for the troops, so there's no problem with saying exactly what the DOJ says in its brief-- so I went a head and quoted it. --Alecmconroy 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Winkler vs Gates

The appeal decision was renamed Winkler v. Gates, due the the change in the Secretary of Defense. I redirected Winkler v. Gates to here. Ironically, both Secretaries of Defense are Eagle Scouts, and when appointed, Gates was actually head of NESA. GCW50 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also , I love the separate opinion which effectively saw through the charade of the original lower court decision:

" This order was dated June 22, 2005, and it notes that “[t]he injunction the plaintiffs are seeking specifically excludes the upcoming 2005 Jamboree.” Whether the plaintiffs’ forbearance in this regard was the product of generosity, the spirit of compromise, or a desire to avoid the public relations fallout that would have attended their eleventh-hour scuttling of the 2005 Jamboree (if that’s what would have occurred), their conduct undermines any claim that they were suffering a grave constitutional injury. Constitutional litigation is legitimate only where there is a real injury and a legal remedy available to redress it. A willingness to postpone the remedy suggests that the plaintiffs’ injury was not real but only a legal fiction to get their Establishment Clause claim before the court." GCW50 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we haven't heard the last of the jamboree issue. --Jagz 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh it's possible that the plaintiffs will appeal it to the Supreme Court, but considering that the Supreme Court has ruled in so many cases that people can't sue over how taxes are spent (they get to elect legislators to make those decisions for them) it would probably be fruitless. It was so clear in the law, that appeals court obviously had made up it's mind before Wednesday's oral arguments, hence even had it's decision already written! Of course, folks may continue to issue harrassment suits against the Boy Scouts (I don't think the 2001 origin date of Winkler can be attributed to anything but revenge over the 2000 Dale decision.) I suspect the decision here will be brought to play in the San Diego suit as there are obvious parallels.
Personally, I believe folks have gone about this all wrong. The gay rights movement should have worked on getting the Federal Civil Rights Act amended to include sexual preference as a federally protected civil right first (it's not). Once the whole country accepted that as a norm, then BSA might have gone along, saying the YPP is enough protection. But the Dale suit and the subsequent "freedom of association" ruling have actually made the opposition more vocal and persistant. As for the religious issue, if folks just repeat the Scout Oath and sign the DRP (which is basically there to placate the Catholic Church to allow kids to go camping on Sunday and know that the Scout leaders won't be trying to steer the kids away from their religious education), no one cares what "God" actually means to them. I could call the processor in this computer my "God" for all BSA cares. Once again picking on an established non-political icon of goodness is the wrong way to win friends for one's non-mainstream cause. And in this case, it has proven counter-productive and detrimental to the causes, BSA and the nation's youth. GCW50 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It may come up again over someone with legal standing. --Jagz 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be difficult to find, even with the absurb notion that BSA is a religion, which is now legally pushed back to square one. Think of the classes of persons involved. The Public is allowed to visit the Jamboree and isn't required to repeat the Scout Oath. Soldiers attending don't need to repeat the Scout Oath, and anyway, most are actually volunteers for a highly sought after assignment. And Scouts and Adult Leaders are selected to attend based on their past Scouting experience. Typically there's only one or two Jamboree contingent troops allowed per entire BSA district, so there are competitive selection boards and interviews for the adult leaders and, in some cases, the boys who have to be First Class. So none of those pretty broad classes of people have suffered any harm. Who else is there, since BSA's right to restrict membership has now been codifed by Dale into "Freedom of Association"?GCW50 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

The ACLU's viewpoint should be presented in this article so I put it back in. --Jagz 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I added BSA's as well. GCW50 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that the Government pays $2 million a year

It is unclear whether this statement is referring to a Jamboree year, which is every fourth year, or that the US Government spends this much each year to continue supporting the Jamboree. 72.85.5.238 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "$2 million a year" is confusing. The federal government has spends something like $8 million on each Jamboree. The Support Our Scouts Act requires the Secretary of Defense to spend at least this much on each future Jamboree unless he first reports that doing so "would be detrimental to national security." Pub. L. 109-148, §8126(c)(2), 119 Stat. 2680, 2728-30 (Dec. 30, 2005). The statute requires the Department of Defense to spend millions of dollars on each Jamboree, not that it spend any specified amount on a yearly basis. Eric Alan Isaacson 09 May 2007

Declaration of Religious Principle and Expelling Agnostics and Atheists

I supplemented the reference to "duty to God" in the Scout Oath with an excerpt from the Declaration of Religious Principle stating the BSA's position "that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." [2] The Declaration is as much an issue as the Oath in disputes concerning the BSA's policy on atheists and agnostics. It now appears on every membership application.

I question the accuracy of, but did not alter the assertion that "The Boy Scouts of America has always required all Scouts to agree to the Scout Oath." I am aware of no case in which the Boy Scout Oath was employed to expel or exclude children until the 1970s. The Girl Scout Promise, which also speaks of "duty to God" is not employed to expel or exclude children. And even in the BSA, the requirement that children recite the Scout Oath is selectively enforced.

Eric Alan Isaacson 09 May 2007

No, it's not selectively enforced. Memorizing and repeating the Scout Oath has been a basic joining requirement since 1910 when the first rank was Tenderfoot. See the 1911 Boy Scout Handbook. If a troop is following the standard training, every Troop meeting begins with the entire troop repeating the Scout Oath and/or Law, and the Scout usually must individually repeat it before every Board of Review and also explain how he's living up to it in every Scoutmasters conference. That's been pretty consistent for nearly 100 years and personally witnessed at every Scout meeting I've been to for the past 50 years.
There are no cases before 1970 because no one complained about any of BSA's policies until the 1970's. The very first suit EVER about any BSA policy involved girls in Schwenk vs BSA which was dismissed in 1976. GCW50 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


I think it is accurate to say "The Boy Scouts of America has always required all Scouts to agree to the Scout Oath." The reason, I think, there aren't any known cases of atheist expulsion/exclusion prior to the 1960s is probably due to two factors:
(1) Prior to the 1970s, there was a scarcity of openly atheistic youth. Atheistic was seen as communistic, nihilistic, or just plain immoral, and atheists probably kept their views to themselves, and just "went with the flow".
(2) Prior to the 1970s, compliance with the Scout Oath may not have been seen as being in conflict with atheism. "doing your best to do your duty to god and my country" might not be seen as synonymous with having to be a theist.
Selectively enforced? I would think not. Diversely interpreted, perhaps. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Link number (4) to the Richmond Times-Dispatch no longer works. The Times-Dispatch has removed the article. 96.18.39.97 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Who were the plantiffs?

Unless I missed it, the article doesn't really explain who the plantiffs were. Considering the outcome, this would likely be helpful in understanding why the court decided they didn't have standing (as that isn't explained either). ~~

Thanks for the feedback! I think I fixed it. In short, they were taxpayers complaining that their tax money was being spent for establishment of religion by means of supporting Boy Scouts. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As of when the case was filed:

  • Eugene Winkle, Minister, First Methodist Church, Oak Park, IL
  • Gary Gerson, Rabbi
  • Timuel Black, Professor, City College of Chicago, activist
  • Mary Cay Marubio, Lawyer
  • C. Douglas Ferguson, Lawyer

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Winkler v. Rumsfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Winkler v. Rumsfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winkler_v._Rumsfeld/Archive_1&oldid=1157807579"