Pledge Case Argued Today

[Brown]

As of this writing, there are no stories from the major news sources yet about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Pledge case. The Pledge case is the second of two cases on the docket.

This analysis from the New York Times (registration required) provides a lay summary of the thorny issues. The briefs of the various parties can be found with a Google search. I recommend review of the government's brief and some of the amicus (friend of the Court) briefs, in particular, the brief prepared by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Justice Scalia will not participate in this case.

Before reaching the Pledge issues, the Court would have to address a question of "standing." "Standing" pertains to having the right to sue. In some cases, the Court can sidestep a sticky issue on grounds of standing. In other cases, however, the Court gives the constitutional standing requirements short shrift. (In Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court simply ignored the question of standing, and allowed Bush to assert Equal Protection arguments on behalf of Florida voters even though Bush himself was not a Florida voter.)

 

[varwoche]

There is an interesting sub-plot here as to the daughter's standing. The father has (not much) part-time custody; the mother/daughter are church-going and do not object to the pledge. (As I understand.)

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Isn't this just a case of "undoing" what was done in the 1950's (Eissenhower Pres era)? Sticking in "under god" was a way to differentiate between fine, upstanding Americans and those godless commies.

Whatever the man's relationship to his daughter, the bigger issue is the rights of "non-believers".

Charlie (In dog we trust) Monoxide

 

[varwoche]

Whatever the man's relationship to his daughter, the bigger issue is the rights of "non-believers".

Agreed. However the court could decide the daughter doesn't have standing.

 

[Brown]

Very preliminary reports say that the Court is concerned with the issue of standing. I decline to provide a link, because the reports are constantly being updated and the link may not be of much use. (I use the Yahoo news service, which uses the AP feed.)

 

[Silicon]

This should work:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance_11

Here are some direct quotes. I guess this is going on right now.


"He says `I have my own rights, I have a right as a father to try to influence this child,'" Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that the issues raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do with domestic relations." And, Justice David H. Souter said that Newdow could argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing."

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration lawyer arguing for the school district, said that the mother was concerned that her daughter had been "thrust into the vortex of this constitutional case."

He said the Pledge of Allegiance should be upheld as a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

 

[Silicon]

I love that Scalia recused himself.

We have a CHANCE!!!


C'mon SCOTUS, do it for my DAUGHTER!!!!


(Acually, I kind of don't care. If my daughter is forced to say "Under God", she may learn something more about how the world really works. Nobody is as hated as an atheist!)

 

[bpesta22]

Thought experiment:

I say we replace these two words with "Under White People" instead.

Would that be acceptable?

If not, why?

Well, if you don't like it, just stand silent while the rest of the-- white kids-- recite the phrase.

If "Under White People" is offensive and unfair because it specifically excludes a subset of Americans, then why isn't "Under God" just as unfair.

This is especially ironic, given that many of the founding fathers were deist-- some atheist-- few christian.

Let's get christianity the ◊◊◊◊ out of our Government

Bryan


(interesting side note: The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase ``under God'' should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.)



**Education causes theocide **

Get a college degree: kill the god of the gaps.

 

[varwoche]

I'm reminded that the senate voted unanimously to put "under god" back into the pledge.

 

[Brown]

I'm reminded that the senate voted unanimously to put "under god" back into the pledge.

From the current AP/Yahoo story:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

What scares me is that the guy is representing himself. And he seems like kind of a fruitcake. I heard a snippet of a song he wrote and was selling cd's of. It went something like "I've got those old time religion pledge of allegiance blues." *shudder*

He's also pretty much bankrupted his daughter's mother. She's got over 1/2 a mill in legal expenses.

That said, I of course hope he wins.

 

[Grammatron]

What scares me is that the guy is representing himself. And he seems like kind of a fruitcake. I heard a snippet of a song he wrote and was selling cd's of. It went something like "I've got those old time religion pledge of allegiance blues." *shudder*

He's also pretty much bankrupted his daughter's mother. She's got over 1/2 a mill in legal expenses.

That said, I of course hope he wins.

How did he force her to incur such legal expenses?

 

[bpesta22]

What scares me is that the guy is representing himself. And he seems like kind of a fruitcake. I heard a snippet of a song he wrote and was selling cd's of. It went something like "I've got those old time religion pledge of allegiance blues." *shudder*

He's also pretty much bankrupted his daughter's mother. She's got over 1/2 a mill in legal expenses.

That said, I of course hope he wins.

If his replies are his brilliant as the one Brown just quoted, I'd say he made a wise choice

Makes me kinda proud to be an American.

until of course, he loses

 

[Hexxenhammer]

How did he force her to incur such legal expenses?

You know, I don't know. I heard that on the NPR story I heard this morning. I would have figured that he was suing the school and the mother wouldn't even need to be involved. I'm just guessing here, but maybe for some reason she needs representation too.

She is a born again christian and filed one of those "friend of the court" briefs.

Another interesting thing was that they (the mother and father) refused to bad mouth the other. Neither seems to harbor any ill will about the situation.

So, I'll say again, they're all a buncha weirdoes.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

If his replies are his brilliant as the one Brown just quoted, I'd say he made a wise choice

Makes me kinda proud to be an American.

until of course, he loses

He was a very eloquent speaker on the NPR piece I heard. He's an emergency room doctor AND a lawyer. Just kinda freaky too.

 

[Brown]

What scares me is that the guy is representing himself.

This would be worrisome, but for the fact that Americans United did a pretty good job of carrying the ball, too. You can read the AU brief (pdf) at this link. The ACLU also contributed to this brief. Here is a passage worth noting:

That the exercise [the recital of the Pledge] does not take the form of a prayer... is irrelevant, for '[t]he government may not compel affirmation of religious belief.' [Citation omitted.] The Court has 'previously rejected the attempt to distinguish worship from other religious speech, saying that "the distinction has [no] intelligible content," and further, no "relevance" to the constitutional issue.'

This little argument does two things: (1) It shoots down the notion that "under God" is constitutionally acceptable because "the Pledge is not a prayer," and (2) it adds a little zinger. The quotation at the end there is from none other than Justice Scalia. It was Justice Scalia who urged that no legal distinction be made between worship and other religious speech.

The brief, incidentally, includes as an appendix a letter from President Bush, that suggests that he believes that "under God" is a prayer of sorts: "When we pledge allegiance to One Nation under God, our citizens participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence." (emphasis mine) It seems to me that any person who wishes to humbly seek the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence is, by definition, praying.

For a real chill, read the history surrounding adoption of "under God" that begins on page 18 of AU's brief. The sponsors of the legislation celebrated by playing the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers," and many of the legislators specifically went on record as saying that the purpose of adding "under God" to the Pledge was to make a statement of religious belief. President Eisenhower's Statement Upon Signing declared that schoolchildren "would daily proclaim ... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Now, as for Newdow: he didn't really do a bad job in his brief, either. He wasn't great, but he wasn't bad.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Brown, are you a lawyer? I hope I can afford you the next time I get sued.

 

[rdaneel]

I wonder if this could have an effect on the election. It seems to me that striking down "under God" will create a lot of religious anger that Bush could capitalize on.

He could begin decrying this "attack on faith" and vow to do something about it, and people will buy it.

 

[Rocky]

The Bush administration opposes the ban, with Solicitor General Theodore Olson telling the justices the Pledge was simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

This (along with other Bush admin quotes) sounds like "You cannot be both patriotic and atheist."

If I remember right Bush Sr. said somthing VERY close to that.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

This (along with other Bush admin quotes) sounds like "You cannot be both patriotic and atheist."

If I remember right Bush Sr. said somthing VERY close to that.

Bush the First said something like atheists shouldn't be citizens at all.