The Chief Justice of the United States opened the door of his home to a process server this week, accepting a summons relating to a case filed by Micheal Newdow. Newdow is seeking to enjoin Roberts in his personal capacity and his official capacity from saying “So help me God,” at the conclusion of the inaugural oath next week.
I don’t believe this is a good use of our limited judicial resources, especially for what amounts to an absurd and settled question.
I agree, it seems silly. I presume the fact that the summons was issued means some judge somewhere has agreed to hearing the case though, right?
Newdow is still Constitutionally correct, no matter how trivial it may seem.
If the phrase was changed to “so help me Allah,” millions of people would have a fit.
No, he is not correct… unless this is one of those “Diogenes Starring as Humpty Dumpty” moments. [sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup] “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Yeah, since we speak English here, it would be an odd statement to say four words, three in English and one in Arabic. I would certainly wonder what his motivation to say the word, “god”, in Arabic rather than English might be.
Dunno. I’m usually on the side of a strong seperation of Church and State on these types of things (I think the God-talk should be removed from the Pledge, for example). But the oath is more of a personal thing, if Obama thinks it makes it more personally binding on him if he evokes a deity, I don’t really see a problem with that. A Muslim president who wanted to evoke Allah for the same reason should be similarly able to do so.
He’s never going to win, but at least he’s making a legitimate political statement. It’s a lot more reasonable than some cases, like the guy who wanted a million bucks because the cleaner lost his pants.
OK, so what if he said “So help me Vishnu” or something?
OK. What about : “so help me the gods?” or “So help me Satan?”
“Help me Rhonda”?
I agree, Obama should be able to say it if he wants. I’d guess Newdow is arguing that Roberts prompting him to say “So help me God” amounts to the U.S. government endorsing belief in God.
I do think there’s a difference between the President personally asking for God’s help vs. the President-elect being instructed to ask for God’s help before assuming the office of President.
I still don’t think Newdow has any chance of winning his case, though.
Damn it, I cannot remember if an individual citizen has standing to sue for establishment clause violations or not…
Does anyone know whether the complaint is available online or on westlaw? I’d be very interested in reading it.
I’m fairly certain I read earlier that Roberts is adding the phrase at Obama’s request.
I actually think you could argue that the addition is unconstitutional not because of the establishment clause, but simply because the oath is dictated in the Constitution and that adding to it is thus a violation. But I don’t think that’s what the Newdow is saying.
::sigh:: There’s always some wanker who through sheer ineptitude/madness/whatever almost seems like a ringer from the other side sent to marginalize.
Way to go, [DEL]Nimrod[/DEL] Newdow.
I’m mostly atheist, believe firmly in Seperation of Church & State, Freedom from Religion, and all that, but I have never thought that the point was to try to erase every reference to this country’s predominate religion/level of religiousness at every turn.
I think this is the same guy that sued schools for requiring the God language in the Pledge. The case was thrown out by the SCOTUS because he didn’t have standing, but because of some convoluted issue with his child custody, not because an individual can’t sue on establishment grounds. I’m pretty sure if some such rule existed, he would never have gotten as far as he did with that previous suit.
I’m not arguing that Obama shouldn’t say it if he wants to, but it shouldn’t be solicited by Chief Justice. It’s not part of the oath.
It’s not like I really care, though. I’m just noting that soliciting it as part of the oath technically violates the prohibition on religious tests for office.
Well when it was the pledge case, he claimed standing because of his child I thought. I have this memory from law school regarding paying taxes specifically not granting you standing to sue the government re how those taxes are spent. I also have a feeling that establishment stuff is exempted from that, but I can’t remember.
This appears to be it: http://www.ffrf.org/legal/warrenComplaint.pdf
The case number is 1:08-cv-02248-RBW
The hearing is on 1/15.
The parties have already filed briefs, which you can view on Pacer if you have an account. If I get some time later, I’ll try to download them and post them somewhere.
I presume the Oath is intended to make the oath-taker aware that they are about to embark on something “serious”, that has heavy legal and ethical resonsibilities, whether it be marriage vows, taking the witness stand, or an oath to serve in some governmental capacity.
It also assures the viewers that the oath-taker is aware of all this.
The most widely recognisable form of the oath is to swear “by God”, as a cultural thing.
If Obama wanted to swear in whatever way he wishes to achieve that effect, that’s up to him.
Swearing out an oath on the soul of your peanut butter sandwich would not inspire folks around you that you are being serious.