Norfolk County Superior Courthouse.  Image via Wikipedia

— Quincy Massachusetts News by Quincy Quarry News – News, Opinion and Commentary

(“I gave up a lucrative private practice to preside over this?”). 
Image via istock

The motions hearing in a Norfolk County Superior Court courtroom in Dedham yesterday to ponder the planned installation of Roman Catholic patron saints on the City of Quincy public building mostly went about as expected as well as gobsmackingly so at times.

A major part of what was expected was that the American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the plaintiffs ably and cogently presented their brief.

Plaintiffs’ council opened with its oral arguments why installation of the statues should be enjoined from installation until the case might be adjudicated.

(“Will the defense wrap up as quickly?”)
Image via Canva

Plaintiffs’ council posed oral arguments for imposing an injunction in but sixteen minutes and latter followed up with a roughly five minute compelling response why the defendants’ subsequently filled cross-motion to dismiss the case should be denied.

As for the do not install injunction request, of particular note is that granting it would pose no consequential impediment to opening the impending new public safety headquarters for use as well as would give rise to less further cost on top of the upwards of a million or so already spent to commission the statues in ways that the plaintiffs concurrently argued were done in violation of applicable law including constitutional law.

Conversely, defense council then spent upwards of an hour and a half throwing all manner of “stuff” against the courtroom’s walls in response to the plaintiffs brief in the hope that something might stick.  

Counsel for the defense
An old Columbia Pictures still image

So much “stuff” was shoveled by the defense that the Quincy Quarry staff member covering the hearing could not help but wonder if hazardous materials mitigation services might be needed to clean up the courtroom after the hearing as well as perhaps also repairs needed to the defense council’s desk given all of the table pounding by the defense.

For example, arguing that a statue of a winged archangel from sacred text dating back over two millennia ago who was then subsequently named the patron saint of police by the Roman Catholic Church in 1949 is not a religious statue as well as doing so with a straight face to boot.

If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” — Carl Sandburg

An extraordinarily buff statue
A City of Quincy image

Further curious was the defense counsel posing that the statues would be at some distance away from Sea Street and thus not pose much in the way of insult or jury to passersby and most especially thus also not posing anything untoward upon impressionable minors.

Needless to say, the judge deserves props for not eye-rolling or otherwise showing any other overly obvious displays of exasperation given the number of often curious arguments posed by the City’s defense council and the attorney jointly retained by the police and firefighters unions.

Even so, the judge did note his incredulity over the unions’ attorney posing that there was no basis to challenge a government entity for endeavoring to do what the City of Quincy is trying to pull.

Additionally, the unions’ attorney had no answer to the judge asking what Quincy native President John Adams might think about the matters now before the court.

And as for a further point about the amicus curie presentation by the unions’ shared attorney, some of it was likely fashioned so as to pose often tortured reads of applicable law to seek appeals given likely adverse rulings against the City of Quincy and most especially so for Quincy’s arguably Agalmatophiliac mayor.

Pinocchio
A Washington Post image

Additionally problematic for the mayor, the City of Quincy’s City Solicitor was caught in a lie when he claimed that there was no agreement to not install the statues until the court might unlikely find that installing the two statues would not pose any of the various violations of law as have been compellingly undercut as well as repeatedly posed by the plaintiffs’ council. 

Specifically in this instance, the plaintiffs’ counsel noted to the judge a document in this case’s docket that affirms that the statues would not be installed until the court might — however implausibly — find that the statues do not violate applicable law including state constitutional law which was oh so ironically was authored by then citizen John Adams.

Under advisement
A file photo

In any event, the judge took both motions under advisement as well as noted that he expected to rule well before the statues were said to be expected to arrive from Italy per the City of Quincy’s veracity-impeached City Solicitor. 

In the meanwhile, do be sure to check out the WBZ YouTube coverage; in particular, starting at the 1:20 mark and then endeavor to imagine where Quincy Quarry News would suggest two places where the each of the two statues should instead go.

In any event as well as needless to say, Quincy Quarry will continue to follow this dispute to its inevitable conclusion.

Two of a buff kind?
Conjoined images of City of Quincy images

For example, perhaps the Quarry will task its arts critic O. Fingal Wilde to weigh in on the all but identical homoerotic modelings of both of the bare chested Roman Catholic patron saints as well as their similar facial modeling given perhaps the sculptor relying on the same favorite model as his muse..

Also under consideration by Quincy Quarry News is reaching out the Roman Curia’s Dicastery for Culture and Education for its sentiments about the buff renderings of a couple of Roman Catholic patron saints.

QQ disclaimer