Ernie Chamber’s lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against God has been thrown out. It’s once again getting a few giggles on atheist blogs so I thought I’d take a moment to remind people why Chambers filed the suit to begin with.
As I said before, Chambers filed the lawsuit in protest over the filing of “frivolous” lawsuits. His example of a frivolous lawsuit and the proverbial straw that broke his back?
The one filed by Tory Bowen against Jeffre Cheuvront, a judge in Nebraska, accusing him of violating her first amendment rights. The reason she filed it is because Cheuvront barred the use of any words and phrases that would have given the jury the impression that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with Pamir Safi.
That’s why Chamber’s filed his lawsuit. Because a woman barred from describing herself as raped filed a lawsuit against the judge who barred her from doing so. That’s “frivolous” in Chamber’s book and should be mocked via the filing of a real frivolous lawsuit.
Chambers is not amusing. He’s an asshole, plain and simple.
{ 3 comments }
I have heard two wildly different interpretations of Ernie Chambers’s intent with this lawsuit, yours and that it was intended in support of the idea that “that everyone should have access to the courts.” (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2jb6VPJX4XBa5yiEEIuPjrcZmFwD93R41PO0) From the interviews I’ve heard Chambers give, the second seems more likely to be the correct interpretation (although, admittedly, Chambers’s explanation of the suit is barely coherent).
It’s not my interpretation. Chambers stated that Bowen’s federal lawsuit against the judge was the trigger for his lawsuit.
From the AP article right after he filed it last year:
I’m not sure how anyone could possibly view his lawsuit as anything but attempt to embarrass/shame people out of filing lawsuits.
Chambers’s lawsuit did not occur until after the judge in Bowen’s lawsuit “expressed doubts about whether Bowen’s lawsuit ‘has any legal basis whatsoever’ and said sanctions may be imposed against Tory Bowen, the accuser, and her attorneys if they fail to show cause for the lawsuit.” (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10135375) My understanding is that Chambers’s suit was done in opposition to that statement. It should be noted that the article I linked to above simultaneously includes text that supports both interpretations. I really think that Chamber has just done a poor job of presenting his reasoning for the suit, and based on the rest of his long career in the Nebraska legislature I find the interpretation that he filed the suit to protest the Bowen’s suit difficult to accept.
Comments on this entry are closed.