From the press reports beforehand, I thought Newdow was going to be a nutcase. I just read his arguments to the Supreme Court on the Pledge of Allegiance and I think he was brilliant. He also handled himself really well in press interviews afterwards.
What do the rest of you think of him? BTW, I support his position.
Do you have a link to his arguments? I’ve only skimmed an article in the NY Times about his appearance before the Supreme Court, and the Times described his arguments as brilliant and as well-performed as a seasoned lawyer’s. My curiousity is piqued.
I’m fully in favor of ditching “under God” from the pledge. Newdow is doing a good job, but it’s pretty futile. We probably have to go thru this every 10 yrs or so, and maybe at some point it’ll stick. But not now.
From a political perspective, if the SCotUS eliminated the phrase, it would be a disaster for the Dems and a bonanza for the Pubs. Somethink like 85% of the US populace supports having “under God” in the pledge. Talk about your activist judges… I’m sure Bush would like nothing more than to have yet another court-related issue to distract the voting public from the more important things we should be discsussin in this campaign.
Here’s a synopsis of the action.
Oops. Synopsis of the action.
It would be nice to hear the audio from that session, eh? Apparently the news media has been given audio tapes but there are no plans for the court to make them public, even tho they have a SCOTUS web site. If anyone has a “bootleg” copy, I’d sure like to hear it.
Another SDMB thread on this topic
A thread on the Atheist Forum. Includes an eyewitness report by Dave Condo on the rally in front of the courthouse on Wednesday.
I was also expecting him to be a raving nutter, and was hugely impressed by the Times’ excerpts. His comebacks to some of the Supremes were brilliant.
I also don’t expect he’ll win. My only complaint was there should be less of the “my daughter is being told her daddy is a liar” and more of the larger issue: this isn’t about his daughter, it’s about all of us, religious and nonreligious.
Count me in as one of the admirers.
It may be futile at present, but it’s encouraging to hear the case being presented so credibly and powerfully. Many of the progressive elements that have led to a more civil society were futile when first presented. We need people with vision and courage: Dr. Newdow is one. Anything that helps relax the grip that religion has on the throat of human society is something to cheer about.
Anybody else find this particular argument somewhat frightening?
Sort of sets off my “tyranny of the majority” radar.
He is doing much better than I expected as well. That dosen’t change the fact the he is a major league asshole. His daughter lives with her mother who is a Christian, the girl has no problem with the pledge as it stands. The only thing the little girl will get out of this is that she will know for sure that Daddy hates Mommy so much that he is willing to go the SCOTUS to prove it.
by the way I don’t care about the wording of the pledge as long as kids aren’t forced to say it at govt. funded schools
If most predictions are wrong & the court rules to strike “under God” from the pledge, we’ll see a constitutional amendment passed & ratified in almost as little time as it took the jury to deliberate the Martha Stewart case.
Nonsense. In fact, both parents have made a big deal about not badmouthing each other; there’s no reason to think she’d interpret it like that, unless you’re looking for a reason to hate the guy.
And the little girl is what, seven? She’s hardly old enough to understand what the court system is, much less understand what the Supreme Court is.
From all signs, both her parents are handling it in a great way as far as she’s concerned. The father is talking about the damage to HIM resulting from the state’s effectively telling his daughter that his religious beliefs are wrong.
Daniel
What!? Where do you get that idea? The parents (Newdow and Banning) have been locked in a bitter custody battle for the past 8 years. Newdow lost most of his rights in a hearing three years ago. Of course the daughter has not been interviewed but according to Banning the little girl does not support her father.
Newdow fought to have his daughter present at the hearing! How could you possibly interpret that as trying to keep her out of the middle of the argument. Luckily the court had sense enough to not allow the little girl to be present.
So she is seven – true she may not really understand what is going on right now but so what? she won’t understand it as she grows up? As she grows up constantly hearing and reading about her father going to the SC to keep her from saying the pledge (even though she wants to say it) and knows that this happened during a long custody battle that the father was losing at the time – what is she supposed to think?
Why would I look for a reason to hate the guy when I support his case?
The only thing I didn’t understand is why Newdon didn’t say in response to “Well you know, you’re daughter doesn’t have to say the pledge,” something like, “Well my daughter would like to pledge her allegiance to the flag and to the United States of America.” I found some of the justices’ arguments to be outright scary as well; some even betrayed a questionable capacity for rational thought and limited understanding of the Constitution. This case should be an absolute lay-up. Any who votes against it has no reasonable basis to do so.
Do you really think that it has a shot at winning? Honestly? That would be great. I’m not so sure myself.
However, I think anyone who argues about how Newdow is a jerk is just trying to avert the discussion away from the real issue.
Not to diminish his performance rating, but I saw every one of those questions and Mike’s answers on CSPAN & CNN forums over the past few months. It certainly prepared him well, along with the 11 mock trials he endured. If he acted as well in real court as he did in those forums, he did OK. My only criticism is he talks too fast; something the written transcript won’t show!
I agree, but the policy of our court system for over 200 years has been to require the petitioner be the aggrieved party. Class action suits are about the only way around this, and their use has been curtailed over time. Think how much court time would be occupied if just anyone could sue about just anything.
If anyone wants to read an interesting story about how the Supreme Court works from the petitioner’s standpoint, I recommend Gideon’s Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis.
Rjung, the Slate link given in spoke-'s post is pretty detailed about the session. Other than that, we’ll have to wait for the transcript, about 10 more days, or the audio if a news service releases it.
Really?
How about stare decicis? How about the fact that the Supreme Court has consistently not viewed references to or invocations of God, such as the Pledge, as an “establishment” of religion. See County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 671-73 (1989); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675-78 (1984); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983). Government expression may acknowledge or reflect the broader culture, including its religious elements, Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792 (permitting government religious expression as “acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country”), so long as it does not establish religion. That is, government may freely recognize the role of religion in society, so long as it does not proselytize for or “endorse” it. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 306-08 (2000).
(The above was paraphrased liberally from amicus briefs).
You may well make a reasonable case for upholding the circuit court’s decision, but it’s hyperbole to say, as you did, that there exists “no reasonable basis” for overturning the lower court.
There is plenty of reasonable basis. You may disagree; you may exercise your judgement differently. But it doesn’t make the other side unreasonable in this case.
I saw the reference to the mock trials in the NYT as well. What were those?
Bricker and agiantdwarf: I was merely editorializing. I didn’t mean it will be a lay-up, just that it should be. There might be some precedent, but I don’t think the arguments have any merit. Yes, that is my opinion, and I can’t believe that any remotely reasonable person could not come to the same conclusion.
O’Connor and the other justice’s argument that the girl doesn’t have to say the pledge doesn’t address the content of the pledge. Someone should be able to pledge their allegiance to the flag and to the United States of America without being “forced” to say that this nation was either formed or watched over by God. Moreover, I can’t think of a reason why a justice wouldn’t vote to remove that line unless they were motivated to meld church and state or influenced by those who were.
Our pledge of allegiance is an oath supplied by the government. It is expected to be recited daily by schoolchildren as an affirmation of patriotic faith. I cannot think of a better example of “endorsing” a religion than to specifically describe our country in that oath as “one nation, under God.”
That excludes me. I do not live under or worship a mythical being you may wish to call “God.”
DanBlather, I don’t have a specifc link, and the CSPAN shows I watched were more forums than trials, but I imagine the mock trials were attempts at simulating actual court conditions as much as possible without actually being in one. Isn’t that what “mock” means to you?
