Here’s a good news wrapup about today’s events in the Newdow Pledge of Allegiance SCOTUS case; oral arguments were this morning. It looks like Mike (may I call you Mike?) gave a strong performance. Even an opposing attorney complimented him.
Apparently transcripts are available online only after 10-12 days at the Official Scotus site.That seems like a ridiculous time lag in this computerized age, but courts have never been progressive in this regard.
Haven’t been able to find an online audio archive, but I’m pretty sure the court makes audio tapes of all oral arguments. Anyone know where this might be available? It sure would be nice to hear it first-hand.
They’ll kick this one out on standing. The Supremes love to do that when its a thorny issue (although if they keep it, it’s only to – once again – slap the hand of the 9th Cir.)
If so, that will leave the lower court ruling intact, right? Then that means that the 9th Circuit Court area – mostly western U.S. – will have a diff Pledge than the rest of the country. I guess the godists and christers will have to move east and leave California to the Godless Americans.
Funny, that - he had me convinced he was an asshole before he even got that far.
We had a similiar situation at Texas A&M University. I learned the last few lines of “The Spirit of Aggieland” as:
The song was originally written this way back in Old Army Days because the school’s name at the time was the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. When I attended Muster shortly before graduating in 1997, I and several of my classmates were shocked to hear the Cadet Choir sing “AMU” (“Agricultural and Mechanical University”) instead of “AMC.”
This struck me as all sorts of wrong. The song is a university tradition, and should be performed as it was written, regardless of whether our fine school is technically a college or a university. It shows our pride, our heritage, and a long history of dedication.
As an athiest, I have to admit that the phrase “under God” in the pledge seems strangely out of place. Originally, it wasn’t part of the pledge (and hadn’t been, since it originated in the 1800’s) until President Eisenhower OK’d its inclusion to make the pledge sound more reverent and less like a pinko-commie oath.
Did the words need to be added? Probably not. Is it worth taxpayer money and court time so we can get them removed? I certainly don’t think so. I wish Newdow would just be quiet and have a seat.
BTW, musicat, shouldn’t this be in Great Debates? If this thread goes much further, it will likely belong there.
If it was worth the time and money to insert it, it’s worth the time & money to remove it and correct that terrible mistake.
So you think it is too trivial to bother with removing? Apparently the US Congress doesn’t if you judge by their reaction after the 9th Court’s decision, not to mention the rabid posturing of the Bush.
You’re probably right, and at least we can agree on something. I had intended it to be more of a FYI since we’ve had so many debates on this topic, but things do tend to degerate. Meanwhile, DanBlather has one going over in GD anyway. I’m sure he won’t mind if we join him.
ReverseCowgirl already addressed the standing issue, but I believe that the 9th’s decision didn’t change the pledge, it just said that a kid couldn’t be coerced to say it because it contained “under god.”
I had intended it to be more of a FYI since we’ve had so many debates on this topic, but things do tend to degerate. Meanwhile, DanBlather has 
) to gain access.