When U.S. Sens. John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy went on record before the Senate Judiciary Committee as supporting the nomination of 5th Judicial District Court Judge Terry Doughty to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, they put themselves, by extension, squarely at odds with the doctrine of separation of church and state.
That doctrine, Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore notwithstanding, is a cornerstone of American democracy but one which Doughty, like Moore, has chosen to ignore when dealing with defendants who come before him in his drug court.
While many of the DECISIONS dealing with the separation of church and state handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court border on the ridiculous, there is one that stands out. In the 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court established a three-part test for determining if an action of government violates the First Amendment’s separation of church and state provision:
- The government action must have a secular purpose.
- Its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion.
- There must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
It’s important to note that in his confirmation hearings, Doughty boasted of the work of his drug court and that if confirmed, he would be interested in developing a drug court PROGRAM at the federal level patterned on the one he established in the 5th JDC, which is comprised of the parishes of Franklin, Richland, and West Carroll.
So, what’s so wrong about the district’s drug court?
Only that Doughty mandates that defendants enter into either Alcoholics Anonymous or CELEBRATE RECOVERY, both of which are faith-based recovery programs.
In September 2007, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional to order a parolee to attend AA or affiliated programs because requiring attendance at a religion-based treatment program violated the First Amendment.
In handing down its RULING, the court said what while it “in no way denigrate(s) the fine work of (AA and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state.”
While LouisianaVoice takes no position as to the merits of AA or Celebrate Recovery, we do recognize that the Bill of Rights calls for the separation of church and state. By that, it simply means the State shall neither establish a specific religion nor prohibit the practice of such. And the only way to ensure that is for the government to take a hands-off approach to the observance of any religious practice, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other belief.
Doughty doesn’t seem to get that and it is his close association with Celebrate Recovery that gives us pause.
In his questionnaire he completed for submission to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Doughty falls woefully short of any published writings, reports, or policy statements but does include numerous references to his affiliation with Celebrate Recovery. Those references include:
- August 11, 2011: Guest Speaker, “Inventory, Lesson 10,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville, Louisiana.
- January 11, 2012: Guest Speaker, Richland Celebrate Recovery Program, Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center, Rayville, Louisiana.
- September 9, 2012: Speaker, Richland Celebrate Recovery Program, Delhi United Methodist Church, Delhi, Louisiana. “I discussed how the Richland Celebrate Recovery program works with the church.”
- January 3, 2013: Presenter, “What to Do When You Get Out,” Celebrate Recovery Inside, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville, Louisiana.
- January 27, 2014: Speaker, “Starting a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
- February 14, 2014: Guest Speaker, Celebrate Recovery Graduation, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville.
- June 10, 2014: Guest Speaker, Celebrate Recovery Graduation, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville.
- August 5, 2014: Presenter, “Starting a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
- September 17, 2015: Speaker, Welcome Address, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
- December 3, 2015: Speaker, “Lesson 10—Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
- June 27, 2016: Presenter, “Maintaining a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Honduras Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
- July 28, 2016: Speaker, “Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
- August 14, 2016, Presenter, Report on Celebrate Recovery Honduras Mission Trip, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
- August 28, 2016: Presenter, Report on Celebrate Recovery Honduras Mission, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
- March 16, 2017: Speaker, “Lesson 10—Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville, Louisiana. I discussed the benefits of making a spiritual inventory.
So, exactly what is Doughty’s affiliation with Celebrate Recovery? Why Honduras? And who paid for his trips to that country? Why is there nothing in his questionnaire responses to indicate that he ever spoke at an AA event? There are, after all, AA MEETINGS in all three parishes in the 5th JDC.
There was no immediate information available as to who paid for his three trips to Honduras in 2014 and 2016 to speak on behalf of Celebrate Recovery but if Celebrate Recovery paid for his trip and/or his lodging and meals, it could present a potential ETHICS violation for Doughty.
Under General Prohibitions as set out in Louisiana R.S. 42:1111-1121, the Code of Governmental Ethics prohibits the “receipt of a thing of economic value by a public servant for services rendered to or for the following:
- Persons who have or are seeking to obtain a contractual or other business or financial relationship with the public servant’s agency;
- Persons who are regulated by the public employee’s agency;
- Persons who have substantial economic interests which may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the public employee’s official duties.
Celebrate Recovery would obviously have a “substantial economic interest” in the performance of Doughty’s official duties as a judge mandating that defendants in his court enter into programs offered by Celebrate Recovery.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham may have been a bit premature in pushing for Doughty’s nomination and Sens. Cassidy and Kennedy might have been wise to vet the judge a little better before testifying on his behalf before the Judiciary Committee. Kennedy was dogged in his questioning of Matthew Spencer Peterson, whose nomination was subsequently withdrawn. Peterson, of course, is not from Louisiana, so Kennedy could afford to pepper Peterson with embarrassing questions without any risks to his political future.
But Kennedy might have served his Louisiana constituents better if he had been a little more thorough in his examination of Doughty’s qualifications.
Louisiana Voice 
I’ll donate $500 right now if you can point out out where exactly the Bill of Rights clearly calls for separation of church and state as you wrote. It’s simply not in there. Nor was it the intention of the Founding Fathers to completely remove God from society.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Please donate the $500 to Louisiana Voice.
You’re welcome.
Excellent response, earthmother. No question that you have proven fairness 2014 incorrect. Pony up, fairness. You were wrong. Admit it, lick your wounds, and be more cautious about challenging Mr. Aswell in the future.
Mr. Aswell, let us know if and when fairness 2014’s check arrives as promised.
Excellent Earthmother.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence to call for “a wall of separation between church and State.”
While his correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association was written after the Bill of Rights, I believe, if I correctly remember my high school history, that Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers. He did, after all, write the Declaration of Independence.
And while I never said the intent was to “remove” God from society (and I was careful in my wording), I stand by the intent of the First Amendment as stated.
Glad you pointed that out. Also, there were hundreds of founding fathers, not just Jefferson.
Since the Declaration of Independence is being cited how about this statement from him “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…….” is acknowledgement Jefferson believes in a higher power and included it in our founding document so he didn’t have a problem with it then.
Like Fairness, you are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. Never did I deny that Jefferson believed in a higher power. What he said was that there should be no establishment of any particular religion nor should there be any restrictions on religion. That’s self-explanatory. And the only way to guarantee that is to take a hands-off position, i.e. government and church should be separate. That isn’t to restrict the practice of our faith, but to protect it.
That is why I feel it wrong to force defendants into one program over another.
I do hope there are more candidates like Judge Doughty nominated for judges for the federal level!!
Out standing work. Doughty went through on a voice vote. I wrote Cassidy and Kennedy early. No response. Abraham has a horrible conflict of interest in three banks with Doughty. Read our Ouachita Citizen for series of articles.
Sent from my iPhone
>
I agree with the separation of church and state, and until recently my denomination (Baptist) not only believed it, but promoted it. And although I agree that Celebrate Recovery is an excellent and faith-based organization, AA minimizes the faith-based part. They refer to a “higher power, however you may conceive it.” I can’t speak for all units everywhere, but I know of several who have assured doubters that they are welcome regardless of lack of faith. The “however you understand it” can include understanding or believing in atheism or agnosticism.
I am disappointed in you Tom. AA is not a religious organization. Try examining their bylaws before you label them as such.
Again, don’t read what I don’t write. I never said it was a religious organization per se. I know it’s not a church but it is faith-based, according to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Moreover, if you read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I was questioning why the judge does not include AA in his referrals and speeches. I was actually defending AA, a program I know to be effective and certainly worthwhile.
Thanks for the reply.
Any time. In politics, it’s said that if you have to defend your statements, you’ve already lost. I don’t think it’s much different in blogging.
My readers tend to keep me honest—and that’s a good thing.
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS® is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.
• The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for
A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.
• A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization, or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes.
• Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.
From AA Service Manual
Now because the 9th circuit ruled the way they did should make anyone take notice. There’s not a a more liberal court in the country than the 9th circuit court of appeals. They will rule against anything that even looks like religion. Now if Judge Doughty was affiliated with an abortion support group there would be no problem.
In evaluating Judge Doughty’s qualifications, you failed to mention that Judge Doughty was rate “well qualified” (the highest rating possible) for the federal judge position by the American Bar Association’s Committee on the Judiciary. You also failed to mention Doughty’s extensive litigation experience as an attorney and as a judge in both criminal and civil cases. (As set out in great detail in his Senate Judiciary Questionnaire). You also failed to mention Doughty received an “Av ” rating (also the highest rating possible) by Martindale-Hubble as an attorney. Your article is not very fair. sounds like you have an agenda