http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance
I find it odd that the court referred to precedent from a circuit court, when the SCotUS ruled the other way (on a technicality). Karlton’s previous rulings included, interestingly, preventing a student from giving a commencement speech that contained the word “Jesus” and made reference to God.
This case is going back to SCotUS in 5…4…3…2…
Right. They ruled that Newdow didn’t have standing. If that objection is squared away this time, as it seems to be, perhaps they will actually rule on the issue.
I’m sure. It’s really the same thing all over again: I think legal tests make it pretty clear that the wording of the Pledge has religious intent, the question is whether or not the Court will wave that away by citing tradition.
But the SCOTUS did not “rule the other way.” The Supremes threw it out on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have standing and the current court is following the only point of law that has been ruled upon in that Federal District.
Newdow’s suit was tossed because his daughter did not live with him (and I believe the mother is not atheist and attends religious services with the child).
This is a separate suit, in which Newdow has rounded up several other families with no custody issues to plewad the same case.
Yes, this time the SCOTUS will have to hear it and, (barring another escape clause), rule on the issue.
The SCOTUS made no precedent setting ruling. They merely found in the first case the person suing lacked proper legal standing.
Dunno how the Supremes will rule, but requiring saying the pledge as it stands seems blatantly unconstitutional.
They don’t have to hear it, do they? I thought they can just decide not to accept cases.
Correct.
The objections to mandatory pledge-taking (this assumes that children realistically have no option to refuse or consent) fall into two categories.
The first is the 10 C issue of “worshipping graven images.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses and a few other groups object to swearing allegience to an object. The Amish have reservations about oaths, too.
The other category is the issue of government-imposed religion. The 1954 addition of “under God” forces a certain religious assumption upon folks who may believe differently. The Newdow case involved atheism, but there’s also Taoists, observant Jews who don’t believe in speaking the name of the Almighty, and various groups who would rather say “Al’lah,” “Vishnu,” or “Og.” (to name just a few)
Technically they don’t, but politically they do. The SCOTUS is not going to let stand the idea that the Pledge is unconstitutional. And the Democrats better hope this doesn’t become the law of the land, because between that and gay marriage, they’d never see the inside of the Whitehouse for the next 50 years (slight exageration, but you get the point).
Aww, I didn’t see this thread when I started mine… phooey.
Why should the Dems have any problem with a SC decision ruling the Pledge unconstitutional? Did they appoint a lot of the judges on the Court? Don’t think so.
This comes at a time when some Democrats are doing their level best to portray John Roberts as being outside the judicial mainstream.
The judge who ruled in this case was, of course, a Carter appointee.
This poses a political problem for Democrats. Faced with two models of supposed judicial radicalism, I think lots of Americans would choose the one that leaves the Pledge alone.
Really? I thought the “portraying” part would come later - as far as I know, they haven’t been making a lot of noise about his answers in the hearing so far…
They definitely didn’t, but he’s suggesting it would cause a backlash against them, since Republicans have that whole “religious right” thing going on. I think a lot of people in this country are not big fans of that group, and that religious conservatives have convinced the GOP that the GOP needs them more than they actually do.
A heartening decision, and the only corect one, but I’m pretty sure that SCOTUS (if they hear this) will fall back on that phony “Ceremonial Deism” loophole which doesn’t exist in the COTUS but which the Supremes have placed into the law by fiat. They will not have the courage to make the right ruling on this, nor will they have the ability to rise above their own religious biases.
How so? The Democrats haven’t been appointing any judges lately.
In other words, you think Americans want judges who will ignore the Constitution and ruke by fiat? I thought conservatives didn’t like activist judges.
By taking out the “under God”, it can be made constitutional. But my guess is that it will be ruled ceremonial deism, which has been (wrongly or rightly) approved countless times.
Let me walk you thru this…
The pledge, with “under God” in it, is widely supported by the American people, roughly 9-1 in favor. Cite.
If the SCOTUS ruled to strike “under God” from the pledge, or if it just let a lower court’s ruling stand, it wouldn’t matter who appointed the justices. People would come to the conclusion that the Supreme court is too far to the left.
In support of this, and other social issues like SSM, the Democrats would find it almost impossible to win the presidency.
Heaven forfend that the courts fall back on a phony construction that isn’t written in the Constitution, right? I mean, that’s just madness.
If the Ninth Circuit rules as they did before, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case, then the law of the Ninth Circuit: California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii – will be that the Pledge is unconstitutional in its present form.
This stuff may all be true. Americans are morons and they don’t understand the Constitutution. But I would still rather have the courts make the right ruling than make a wrong one just to satiate the ignorant rabble. It’s more important to be right than to win. If ideology actually means anything, then sometimes compromise is the same as surrender.