The appellate justices who will decide whether the U.S. Episcopal Church or the breakaway Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin owns the diocese’s church properties on Wednesday appeared uncertain about the court’s authority to rule on the issue.
“We are involved in a very confusing question of power of the church versus power of the court,” said 5th District Court of Appeal Justice Dennis Cornell, who repeatedly compared the schism between the two church groups to the Civil War.
Justice James Ardaiz also acknowledged the case was “confusing.”
Doesn’t say much for the legal acumen of the judges.
This sounds like the judges are actually looking at the case on its merits, rather than falling under the spell of the TEC lawyers’ Jedi mind tricks.
I wasn’t there, but it sounds to me like the judge was just being honest.
I also see this as hopeful.
Deception and confusion are tricks of the devil – the dark side of the Force.
The basic issue really isn’t confusing at all.
Gosh! I didn’t know that the national church could get rid of bishops if they want to! Hey, national church, look over here at Pennsylvania. There’s a bishop I want you to meet.
Could this work in our favor? A little optimism might be helpful, but we’ll soon see, won’t we?
I was sitting in for the proceedings, and was amazed by what the article omits, that Justice Cornell asked Chubb – a partner at Goodwin Procter – why they didn’t file an unlawful detainer petition. This would be the equivalent of an action against trespassers or squatters. This clued me in that they’re looking at it as a property dispute and are annoyed that they’re being asked to adjudicate a church dispute.
It was very telling as well that Chubb was asked who has the authority to name the bishop of San Joaquin. His answer was that the only TEC has this right – which is a lie, btw. But, the judge apty asked why he was suing for the courts to declare the same. He was clearly caught off-guard by this, and I don’t think his answer was satisfactory.
I’d like to know what The Anglican Curmudgeon has to say about this. Should be interesting.
In fact, he just posted on it:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/10/oral-arguments-before-fresno-court-of.html