The separation of church and state is at the heart of a suit whose outcome could have the effect of dissolving the Satmar Hasidic Village of Kiryas Joel. Plaintiff and dissident leader Joseph Waldman speaks to the news media Monday while attorney Michael Sussman looks on.
By
Chris MckennaTimes Herald-Record
Published: 2:00 AM - 06/19/11
Kiryas Joel dissidents rolled the ultimate grenade into their enemies' tent last week with a federal lawsuit questioning the very existence of the village that the Satmar Hasidic community created 34 years ago.
Their argument — laid out by civil-rights attorney Michael Sussman and sharply disputed by village leaders and their supporters — is that the village discriminates against them because of religious differences, and that public and religious authority are so entwined in Kiryas Joel that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
But even if the plaintiffs prove they've been thwarted and unfairly treated as they allege, a big question is whether a judge would ever order the drastic remedy they proposed: dismantling the Village of Kiryas Joel.
Stolzenberg contends the case could hinge on which of two constitutional readings the judge uses.
The prevailing approach would likely find that the institutions of church and state are separate in Kiryas Joel, and therefore, permissible, she said. But a competing doctrine — she calls it the "get real" approach — might take a less lenient view.
"It's actually hard to predict how the federal judges are going to react to this," she said.
The dissidents' lawsuit tries to show unequal treatment in law enforcement, tax exemptions, elections and other areas through a series of examples. Village leaders say the claims have no merit, and insist they provide services to all residents without discrimination.
Joseph Waldman, a plaintiff in the case and a longtime thorn in the side of the village's leadership, brought a similar case in 1997 to try to get the village dissolved. A federal judge and then an appeals-court panel rejected his demand — but strictly because most of his allegations had just been tried in two previous lawsuits.
The appeals-court judges wrote that Waldman's claims didn't "establish the sort of pervasive and otherwise irremediable entanglement between church and state that would justify a drastic remedy like the dissolution of the village."
ניבא ולא ידע מה ניבא !
מ'האט אפגעשפארט איין ווערצהויז !
אלעס איבריגס בלייבט שיין אפען !
