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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
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?tmp..._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 f**k 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]

Quote:

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

From the current AP/Yahoo story:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

How did he force her to incur such legal expenses?

[bpesta22]

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by bpesta22


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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rocky


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.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

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

Were it not for time, I would've contributed somewhat of the same thought earlier.

I don't know about the election, but I can only imagine the overall public uproar should Newdow prevail. Uninformed, illogical, un-American uproar.

[Denise]

Thoughts...
This case just seems to be such a no brainer to me. The word God obviously has religious connotations. I really don't understand how the common man cannot see that! One cannot say that it doesn't specify a religion, but by using the word God instead of Gods it excludes those who believe in more than one God as well as the atheists.

[Rocky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Bush the First said something like atheists shouldn't be citizens at all.

I found the quote:

Quote:

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

-Bush August 27, 1987

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by bpesta22
Thought experiment:

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

At least you didn't suggest: "...under Hasselhoff..."

[daenku32]

Well, I hope he wins it soon.

Then we can move onto the money slogan and motto. Get those restored also.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise
Thoughts...
This case just seems to be such a no brainer to me. The word God obviously has religious connotations. I really don't understand how the common man cannot see that! One cannot say that it doesn't specify a religion, but by using the word God instead of Gods it excludes those who believe in more than one God as well as the atheists.

Of course it has religious connotations. And they are massively religious. Just look at the uproar over the move to get it taken out. Why would anyone get so upset over the issue if it was just "ceremonial deism" that "doesn't really matter"?

[Hexxenhammer]

It's all the commies' fault. Damn commies.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon
Nobody is as hated as an atheist!

Shut up, you filthy athiest.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
...
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.
...

And who ever said that it doesn't help to have idiots backing your position?

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise
Thoughts...
This case just seems to be such a no brainer to me. The word God obviously has religious connotations. I really don't understand how the common man cannot see that! One cannot say that it doesn't specify a religion, but by using the word God instead of Gods it excludes those who believe in more than one God as well as the atheists.

If you take a look at the AU brief, you'll see that not only does the language have religious connotations, the folks who pushed for its adoption intended it to be that way. It wasn't ceremonial deism at all. It wasn't an appeal to heritage. The folks who pushed for the amendment wanted people to express religious sentiments, and they wanted the government to endorse their religious views. And they got their way.

Now, the folks who want to retain the "under God" language are backpedalling, citing "tradition" and "heritage" and "ceremony" and "patriotism." This is, in my judgment, dishonest. They know damn well that Pledge currently includes a statement of religious belief. They want this statement of religious belief to continue to be officially endorsed by the United States government.

A new poll supposedly shows that 87 percent of Americans want to keep the words "under God" in the Pledge. And I'd wager that the vast majority of them see the phrase "under God" as expressing a religious belief, not as a secular appeal to tradition or heritage or patriotism. It's a religious belief--one that they happen to agree with.

I don't agree that removing "under God" from the Pledge (i.e., returning the Pledge to its pre-McCarthy-era form) will necessarily mean that we have to cancel Christmas or erase "In God We Trust" from our currency. My currency works just fine with that stupid little motto on there. I don't have to make any profession of belief in order to spend my money. But taking the Pledge is different. One who recites the official Pledge (and recitation is in some circumstances compulsory) recites words that are a statement of religious belief.

[Silicon]

Brown,

You didn't happen to file an amicus brief in this case, did you?


Cause we sure could use some of your clear thinking in this case.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
And who ever said that it doesn't help to have idiots backing your position?

The funny thing about all this is (if you have a really dark sense of humor) is that what George Bush said is possibly irrelevant. What all the legislators said back in the 1950s is possibly irrelevant. What Ike said in his proclamation is possibly irrelevant. The Court could choose to ignore all of it.

The reason is that the Court sometimes ignores the intent of the individual lawmakers, focusing instead on the intent of the legislative body as a whole. (And there's some logic to this rule. The president or a legislator might say what he thinks the law means, but his interpretation is not the law, and should not be binding on the Court. The Court can take his views into consideration, but it does not have to agree with them.)

[MLynn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
At least you didn't suggest: "...under Hasselhoff..."

This made me laugh!
But seriously, as a Xtian, I don't care if "under God" is in the Pledge or not. It wasn't originally composed with "under God" so I don't understand why so many people are insecure to the point that there is a huge fight over it. If these two words are taken out it doesn't have anything to do with my faith. (I hope the words do come out so there is more national unity and the Pledge can be shared by everyone)
Edited to correct grammer

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon
Brown,

You didn't happen to file an amicus brief in this case, did you?

Cause we sure could use some of your clear thinking in this case.

Thanks for the compliment. No, I didn't file an amicus brief here, although it would have been a fun case to brief.

If I had drafted an amicus brief, I might have approached the issue from a different angle. Is inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge a correct recitation? After all, if I'm making a solemn promise, shouldn't I be pledging truthfully rather than falsely? So: is it correct to say that this nation is "under God?"

Well, it's not scientifically correct. There is a general consensus that the existence of one or more deities is a matter of faith, not science.

It's not governmentally correct. God has no standing in U.S. Government. There is no "Department of the Almighty," no office in Washington DC from which God directs any governmental affairs. God does not propose any legislation, he does not enforce any laws, he does not decide any contested cases. For that matter, God has no authority to overturn an action of even the most insignificant bureaucrat. There are plenty of self-appointed spokesmen for God, but they have no special standing to direct the course of governmental affairs.

It's not constitutionally correct. The Constitution does not declare that the nation derives any power or authority from God. Rather, government has a strictly secular source: power derives from the People, not from the Almighty. The founders of the Constitution may (or may not) have been religious men, and they may (or may not) have had religious motivations, but they went out of their way to engineer a government that is secular.

It's not historically correct. Since the adoption of our Consititution, our nation has never been officially under religious authority. On the contrary, all official authority in the country has always been secular.

It's not aspirationally correct. Sure, this country aspires to be a nation "with liberty and justice for all," but this nation does not officially aspire to be "under God." This nation does not aspire to theocratic rule. Quite the opposite, we aspire to religious liberty, in which the government cannot urge religious beliefs upon us.

If the presence of "under God" in the Pledge is not correct in any of these senses, then it does not belong in the Pledge. How can the government endorse a pledge, a solemn promise, that contains a known falsehood?

Recitation of "under God" makes sense only if it is religiously correct, and on this point, there is a sincere difference of opinon. As a general rule, the government should not take any action supported solely by the notion that it is religiously correct. Determining what is and what is not religiously correct is not government's business.

[bpesta22]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
At least you didn't suggest: "...under Hasselhoff..."

They can take my Dave avatar when they pry it from my cold dead fingers

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I don't know about the election, but I can only imagine the overall public uproar should Newdow prevail. Uninformed, illogical, un-American uproar.

No question about it. Constitutional amendments will be proposed, impeachments will be discussed, the whole bit.

But the alternative is unpleasant, too. If Newdow loses on the merits of the Pledge issue, we can expect to have more governmental favoritism toward things religious. If you are an athiest or an agnostic, you'd better get used to being thought of as an unpatriotic scumbag and a second-class citizen.

[Rocky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Thanks for the compliment. No, I didn't file an amicus brief here, although it would have been a fun case to brief.

If I had drafted an amicus brief, I might have approached the issue from a different angle.

Brown, May I quote you?

You have phrase those arguments very eloquently and included reasoning that I had not thought of. All told, That is fantastic and in less than 1 page.

[Brown]

In the land of make-believe, I would like the Supreme Court to issue a pronouncement something like this:

Quote:

Since the inception of this Honorable Court, this Court has begun its business with the words "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." We have used these words as a matter of dearly held tradition.

When we first used these words, the Court did not recognize the power of judicial review. The Court did not acknowledge the rights of people of color, and even regarded some of them as chattels. The Court did not have any appreciation for the constitutional rights that attach to radio and television broadcasting. The Court did not protect--to the degree it does today--the rights of individuals charged with serious crimes. The Court had never heard of Equal Protection or the Fourteenth Amendment because they did not exist. The Court was not as sensitive to the civil rights or the privacy of individuals.

Over the years, the Court's stance on each of these issues has changed dramatically. The Court has progressed. The Court continues to recognize and respect and honor tradition, but the Court is not irrevocably wedded to it.

And so, today we announce that we will no longer begin our business with the traditional words "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Each member of the Court may, according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, call upon divine assistance. Each member of the Court may, according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, ask for preservation, guidance and wisdom from a higher source. Although this Court as a body will no longer officially and publicly call upon any divine power, individual justices remain free to do so privately.

The time has come to put the tradition to rest.

I do not expect to hear such a pronouncement in my lifetime.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
If you are an athiest or an agnostic, you'd better get used to being thought of as an unpatriotic scumbag and a second-class citizen.

I've been used to it for quite awhile now.

Hey, but here's a cool image. I'm surprised some christian didn't take a whack at this old guy:

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rocky
Brown, May I quote you?

Sure. If you quote me at length, give credit where it's due.