Supreme Court to hear Pledge case

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-15 07:33pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Newdow...I swear, the guy has totally fucked this up for all of us. It'll probably be more difficult to get God out of the pledge because of him, in the end.
If you think you could do a better job then you are free to try. This man put his life on hold to go to court over this. He has put up with threats of physical violence and even death from the fundie community. All this to fight for what are essentially your rights too. Why don't you show some respect.

Durran has a point. Newdow filed the claim even though the custody of his child was in question and when the child's mother was a Christian and disagreed with him. He also chose a very poor time to do so. Like it or not, lots of people now think that God is on the United States' side ever since he stood by and let thousands of people die in the World Trade Center attacks. Religion and misery go hand in hand, and he's chosen to file a lawsuit against religion when lots of people are miserable because of terrorism.

Let's also not forget that the attacks made religion more of a sacred cow than ever because they were religiously motivated. Now you've got the religious apologists coming out of the wood work yammering about Islam being a religion of peace, even though it condones Moses' slaughter of thousands of Israelites for worshiping a false god.

It's more patriotic than ever to spew drivel about the US' righteousness. "God bless America" might as well be the fucking national anthem, now. This not only affects public opinion, but the judge's interpretations of what is patriotically acceptable and what isn't. So you've got Newdow attacking a sacred cow at the worst possible time on questionable legal grounds. I'm sorry if I'm not crazy about this guy's representation of atheists.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 07:48pm

Not to mention the fact that harping on the Pledge of Allegiance issue actually hurts our other goals. I don't think anyone will disagree that keeping creationism out of school is a FAR more important goal than removing God from the pledge, and focusing on the Pledge of Allegiance issue too much will only send moderate Christians who may otherwise have been symapathetic into the arms of the Jerry Falwells of the world. Moderate Christians see what appears to be an opportunistic and selfish atheist who has no problem using his daughter to advance his agenda aggressively trying to push an issue that is important to them; naturally, they're going to be less inclined to cooperate with atheists than they otherwise would be.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-10-15 08:42pm

True... the timing could have been better... BUt we really should at this point, rally behind him, and make the best of it. He shoudnt have done it at this time, but it had to be done eventually.

so do your best to sway opinion in our favor.

I leave out "Under God' in the pledge each day, and use my Sociology and Government classes as a forum for discussion whenever I possibly can without disrupting the class.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-15 09:24pm

How exactly do you expect Newdow to have known about 9/11? Perhaps if he had shared this crystal ball of his with the FBI the terrorist attacks would have been prevented, thus saving thousands of lives, preventing two wars, and cutting off this religious idiocy that resulted. Boy, only an asshole wouldn't have shared that information.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-15 09:26pm

Newdow's biggest problem was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter who did not share his views. He is a perfect target for opportunistic ad-hominem attacks. Of course, those happen to be hopelessly fallacious, but that means nothing in the context of politics.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 09:38pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:How exactly do you expect Newdow to have known about 9/11? Perhaps if he had shared this crystal ball of his with the FBI the terrorist attacks would have been prevented, thus saving thousands of lives, preventing two wars, and cutting off this religious idiocy that resulted. Boy, only an asshole wouldn't have shared that information.

Newdow filed after 9/11.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-15 09:40pm

Durran Korr wrote:Newdow filed after 9/11.

He must have been foolish enough to think that Bin Laden's attack on the World Trade Centre had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unconstitutionality of forced recitation of material with religious overtones in publically funded schools.

Of course, that's completely true, but then again, we're talking about American politics.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 09:43pm

I'm not arguing that they have any relation. I'm just worried that Newdow's actions are going to do more good than harm to us in the long run.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 09:43pm

More harm than good, I mean.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-15 09:49pm

Durran Korr wrote:Newdow filed after 9/11.

Are you sure? The 9th circuit's decision came down in either late June or early July of 2002. Generally the wheels of justice do not work that fast.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 09:57pm

I'm fairly sure he filed after 9/11, but I can't find any information online to verify it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-15 11:18pm

Durandal wrote:The thing is that the public can't grasp the difference between personal exercises of free speech and the restrictions that exist on the government that prohibit it from doing certain things. The public is frankly fucking stupid.

The public? Key "populist" commentators, like Bill O'reilly don't get this, and in fact argue at length (as he does in his last book, the review of which I apologize for the delay of) how the Founders wanted us apparently to have God on our minds and part of public life.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-16 02:38am

Durandal wrote:
Newdow's claim wasn't specifically dealing with the Pledge itself; it was dealing with the practice of reciting it in schools. To bring a case to a federal court, you have to show that harm is being done. In this case, Newdow probably argued that the state was undermining his authority as a parent by subjecting his daughter to a theistic oath.

However, you have to remember that the Supremes don't have to rule on the ruling itself. They could say, "Well Newdow doesn't have legal custody of the child, so the case should never have gone to trial in the first place," thus overturning the decision without actually commenting on the issue at hand.

That was pretty much my point, since Newdow's claim can/is/might be faulty due to custody issues and the fact that the girls seems to have not suffered any 'harm', wouldn't the SC have more than enough ammo to reverse this case just on the shaky ground the original argument was on?

They should have found a better case for this issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-16 03:16am

Tell me, why should it be necessary to show "damages" in a manner which can be justified in court? Suppose some textbook contained the admonition that all Buddhists are evil and deserve to die horribly for failing to worship God, and that the government condoned this textbook for use in public schools. How do you evaluate damages for that? Isn't the fact that it's grossly unconstitutional damage enough?

Personally, I think that anybody who brings this kind of case has to prepare to have his life flayed open and examiined by ruthless right-wing muckrakers. If I brought the same case (assuming I was an American), they wouldn't be able to get my kids to testify against me but they would dredge up things I said on this BBS and quote them out of context in order to run character assassinations against me, they would interview the guy at the local porn shop to prove that I have no family values, they would try to get my in-laws to testify that I'm a bad person, etc. Cases like this are actually tried in the court of public opinion, in which the Supreme Court justices have ringside seats. Then, they pretend not to have noticed any of that when the trial comes to their door.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-10-16 03:41am

Normally I'd be apathetic to this issue, as I never bothered to really recite the Pledge in school anyway. But what pisses me off is that it was put in there in the 50's* to further distance us from "Godless communism." It wasn't even written there in the first place! If someone's going to put shit in easily, it should be taken out just as easily.

*Not that Eisenhower was my favorite President/General anyway.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-16 10:30am

Darth Wong wrote:Tell me, why should it be necessary to show "damages" in a manner which can be justified in court? Suppose some textbook contained the admonition that all Buddhists are evil and deserve to die horribly for failing to worship God, and that the government condoned this textbook for use in public schools. How do you evaluate damages for that? Isn't the fact that it's grossly unconstitutional damage enough?

No. In order to bring a case before a federal court, you must show that you've sustained direct injury as a result of whatever law or practice you're suing against. It sounds absurd in the context of this case and your hypothetical one, I know, but it screens out a lot of noise. The reasoning is that if something is truly unconstitutional, it will deal out harm that is demonstrable in court.

So, if someone wanted to bring your hypothetical example to court, he'd have to show that his child was injured in some capacity. If the child was Buddhist and came home from school crying one day, that's pretty much a shoe-in. But if the child doesn't seem to care or is not Buddhist, then you'll have a tough time getting the court to take you seriously. This is the same case with Newdow. I'm really surprised that his case was heard in the first place because the mother disagreed with him, and it made him look like an opportunistic asshole.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-16 10:35am

Durandal wrote:
No. In order to bring a case before a federal court, you must show that you've sustained direct injury as a result of whatever law or practice you're suing against. It sounds absurd in the context of this case and your hypothetical one, I know, but it screens out a lot of noise. The reasoning is that if something is truly unconstitutional, it will deal out harm that is demonstrable in court.

You sure? Do you have a statute/case on that? I'm just wondering how they would frame such a requirement- it seems totally wierd to me. In Australia, the High Court (our most senior court) deals with all matters of law, irrespective of whether harm is an issue or not.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-16 11:53am

Vympel wrote:
Durandal wrote:No. In order to bring a case before a federal court, you must show that you've sustained direct injury as a result of whatever law or practice you're suing against. It sounds absurd in the context of this case and your hypothetical one, I know, but it screens out a lot of noise. The reasoning is that if something is truly unconstitutional, it will deal out harm that is demonstrable in court.
You sure? Do you have a statute/case on that? I'm just wondering how they would frame such a requirement- it seems totally wierd to me. In Australia, the High Court (our most senior court) deals with all matters of law, irrespective of whether harm is an issue or not.

Well that's what my Poly Sci professor told us.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-16 12:08pm

Durandal wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Durandal wrote:No. In order to bring a case before a federal court, you must show that you've sustained direct injury as a result of whatever law or practice you're suing against. It sounds absurd in the context of this case and your hypothetical one, I know, but it screens out a lot of noise. The reasoning is that if something is truly unconstitutional, it will deal out harm that is demonstrable in court.
You sure? Do you have a statute/case on that? I'm just wondering how they would frame such a requirement- it seems totally wierd to me. In Australia, the High Court (our most senior court) deals with all matters of law, irrespective of whether harm is an issue or not.
Well that's what my Poly Sci professor told us.

My business law class said about the same thing. If forget the exact wording but it was something like "Courts don't decide hypothetical situations. There must be a real incident before they can take a case."

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-16 12:18pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Normally I'd be apathetic to this issue, as I never bothered to really recite the Pledge in school anyway. But what pisses me off is that it was put in there in the 50's* to further distance us from "Godless communism." It wasn't even written there in the first place! If someone's going to put shit in easily, it should be taken out just as easily.

That's pretty weak reasoning. It's like saying that we might as well remove the Bill of Rights because they weren't in the Constitution in the first place. The pledge was changed many times between when it was first written and the 1950's. Moreover, it had only been the offical pledge for 12 years when Ike make the change. Pledge History

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-16 12:25pm

CelesKnight wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:Normally I'd be apathetic to this issue, as I never bothered to really recite the Pledge in school anyway. But what pisses me off is that it was put in there in the 50's* to further distance us from "Godless communism." It wasn't even written there in the first place! If someone's going to put shit in easily, it should be taken out just as easily.
That's pretty weak reasoning. It's like saying that we might as well remove the Bill of Rights because they weren't in the Constitution in the first place. The pledge was changed many times between when it was first written and the 1950's. Moreover, it had only been the offical pledge for 12 years when Ike make the change. Pledge History

Now that I think about it, I think that I missunderstood your use of the word "should." You meant that it should be possible to remove it easily, correct? (Where as I first thought that you meant that is should be removed b/c it wasn't old enough.) Unless I'm mistaken, it can be removed easiliy--Congress just needs to pass a law and have the President sign it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-16 12:50pm

CelesKnight wrote:Now that I think about it, I think that I missunderstood your use of the word "should." You meant that it should be possible to remove it easily, correct? (Where as I first thought that you meant that is should be removed b/c it wasn't old enough.) Unless I'm mistaken, it can be removed easiliy--Congress just needs to pass a law and have the President sign it.

Bush certainly won't sign that bill, and no other president who cares about his public image would either. The only way to really get it out of there is for the Supremes to rule it unconstitutional (which it is). Also, there's a good chance that the vote may actually dead-lock since Scalia has removed himself from the proceedings. With a 4-4 deadlock, the ruling would stand, but the 9th Circuit Court's ruling would still be inapplicable on a national level. At least I think that's how it goes.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-16 02:12pm

Durandal wrote:
CelesKnight wrote:Now that I think about it, I think that I missunderstood your use of the word "should." You meant that it should be possible to remove it easily, correct? (Where as I first thought that you meant that is should be removed b/c it wasn't old enough.) Unless I'm mistaken, it can be removed easiliy--Congress just needs to pass a law and have the President sign it.
Bush certainly won't sign that bill, and no other president who cares about his public image would either. The only way to really get it out of there is for the Supremes to rule it unconstitutional (which it is). Also, there's a good chance that the vote may actually dead-lock since Scalia has removed himself from the proceedings. With a 4-4 deadlock, the ruling would stand, but the 9th Circuit Court's ruling would still be inapplicable on a national level. At least I think that's how it goes.

That doesn't change the fact that there is an easy process for removing it, as easy as the process for adding it (which is what UV83 was angry about). If the American people wanted it removed, it would be removed.

Changing topics, I think a more interesting question is if the American people want it there enough to pass an Admendment to keep it there. There may be enough support for something like that. The effect of SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional could be... interesting. And there is no easy way to undo that.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-16 04:13pm

On damages: yes, it's true, in the American legal system, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate actual harm of some sort before he can bring a case to civil court. There have been cases thrown out by the Supreme Court on exactly those grounds, and Newdow's own case is dangerously close to being in that same category.

It's not usually that difficult to demonstrate harm in cases where the Constitution has been violated, however. You don't have to prove you've been harmed monetarily (Newdow himself is seeking no damages), just that your rights have been violated somehow. Any athiest parent in the United States could bring virtually the same case as Newdow did.

Mike: I have to disagree when you say the justices pretend not to notice the public fracas in this kind of case. They do notice, but they don't take it into consideration except in rare cases where a ruling against public opinion might be ignored, undermining the court's authority (the one that finally legalized the minimum wage came to mind). This is not one of those cases. If you remember the flag-burning controversy about ten or fifteen years ago, SCOTUS ruled that flag-burning was protected by the 1st Amendment, despite widespread public opinion that wanted it banned. As I said to Durandal last night, the justices are at the very pinnacle of the legal profession in the United States. They didn't get there by being the kind of people who'll risk tarnishing their reputation and their legacy by acting improperly or being public opinion whores.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-10-16 11:24pm

US Constitution wrote:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Could this be used at all? It's Article VI, I believe, and I personally didn't know about it until I read Durandal's site (I think it was his, anyway).

And, even if this can't be used in this case, what about the whole putting your hand on the Bible thing, "So help me God." in oaths, etc...?

Hell, in that case, any member of the military can bring the case up if they refuse to say, "So help me God." in their oath and get into trouble, right?