Supreme Court Reverses Pledge Of Allegiance Ruling

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-14 12:06pm

Wow, I was actually right.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-14 12:27pm

it was the only ruling they could have made. If it went the other way the court would have created a dangerous legal precident.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-14 12:42pm

Pretty much what I predicted. Basically this is a loss for the athiest side, but a minor one--someone else can bring a similar case if he so desires. The fundies will whoop it up a little bit, but there's not much to celebrate here save getting one specific ruling overturned.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-14 01:05pm

Oh no, it's armageddon! Newdow has set the cause of secularism back by a hundred years, just as predicted by the doomsayers!!!!!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-14 01:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh no, it's armageddon! Newdow has set the cause of secularism back by a hundred years, just as predicted by the doomsayers!!!!!

no, but he is a turd and not who i would choose as a posterboy. Need i remind the forum of his grand master plan to ban gender specific personal pronouns?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-14 01:24pm

So it didn't work because of Newdow. Figured.

Anybody still in school want to take it up?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-14 01:44pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:So it didn't work because of Newdow. Figured.

Anybody still in school want to take it up?

someone with the authority to speak for themself, preferably.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-14 02:06pm

I'm in college, but I haven't had to say the Pledge since I was in elementary school. It's not something I can take up.

Anyway, as has been said, they made the only decision they could have. It was pretty much a vote for the status quo. I kind of agree with the decision, since Newdow is really nothing but a shit stirrer who was using his daughter for his own political ends.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-14 02:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh no, it's armageddon! Newdow has set the cause of secularism back by a hundred years, just as predicted by the doomsayers!!!!!

I can't speak for all the doomsayers, but if I recall correctly, I said a decision either way would be a setback for secularism unless SCOTUS tossed the case because Newdow had no grounds to sue. What we have here is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court to chuck this case like a hot potato, thus restoring the status quo.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2004-06-14 03:00pm

I'm still in a school that say the pledge...maybe Stravo can be my lawyer.

Though how I'll afford the cause will be a different matter.

It's too bad, he didn't factor in the custody battle when he took it upon himself to bring this case up. Less, the custody battle happened soon after.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-06-14 03:46pm

One of the Justices defended the pledge as nothing more than "ceremonial Deism". And thus not in opposition to the Establishment Clause. Because, you know, everyone believes in God, they just don't agree on the specifics.

And I haven't said the pledge since junior high, but I still have to use theocratic money.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-14 04:17pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:One of the Justices defended the pledge as nothing more than "ceremonial Deism". And thus not in opposition to the Establishment Clause. Because, you know, everyone believes in God, they just don't agree on the specifics.

And I haven't said the pledge since junior high, but I still have to use theocratic money.

A marker or pen can easily be used to correct the money to make it in-line with the First Amendment. I like keeping the "WE TRUST" on my bills though as a twisted joke about money.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-14 04:22pm

You could always cross out "God" and put "Establishment Clause."

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-14 04:28pm

Mayabird wrote:
Lazy Raptor wrote:One of the Justices defended the pledge as nothing more than "ceremonial Deism". And thus not in opposition to the Establishment Clause. Because, you know, everyone believes in God, they just don't agree on the specifics.

And I haven't said the pledge since junior high, but I still have to use theocratic money.
A marker or pen can easily be used to correct the money to make it in-line with the First Amendment. I like keeping the "WE TRUST" on my bills though as a twisted joke about money.

I cross out the phrase with every dollar that comes into my posession.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-14 05:58pm

I find writing on the currency slightly pretentious.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-14 07:26pm

Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-14 07:32pm

Plekhanov wrote:Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.

isn't it something that's kind of silly to be made a crime, considering there's no real way they can prove that it was you who defaced it unless they actually watch you doing it?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-14 07:37pm

Plekhanov wrote:Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.

Here too.

Mainly because money is federal government property methinks.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-06-14 07:51pm

Gandalf wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.
Here too.

Mainly because money is federal government property methinks.

I think that it's legal to deface money, you just can't spend it afterwards.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2004-06-14 07:54pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.
Here too.

Mainly because money is federal government property methinks.
I think that it's legal to deface money, you just can't spend it afterwards.

All defaced and old money can be given to the bank where they'll issue a new bill of equal value or just spend it in a store where they'll deposit to a bank anyway. The defaced/old money is to be shredded.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-14 07:54pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Isn't defacing the currency a crime in the US? It is in Britain.
isn't it something that's kind of silly to be made a crime, considering there's no real way they can prove that it was you who defaced it unless they actually watch you doing it?

I only know about the law because the back in the 90s the K-Foundation (who used to be that fine stadium house band The KLF) were charged with this offence after they got a bunch of journalists to nail 20 pound notes to crosses which I think they then set on fire (or something like that it was a long time ago) it was all some kind of a statement about the Turner Prize. Since they invited journalists to participate the crime was very well documented and recorded, I’ve no idea if they were convicted though.

These are the same guys who later burnt 1,000,000 pounds (yes that’s right they burnt 1 million quid) of their own money on camera as some kind of an artistic statement, I don’t think the government came after them that time though

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-14 08:06pm

It is only illegal if you attempt to change the value of the money IIRC

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-06-15 12:03am

Yet another expample of why I neither trust or like the U.S. court-system. Well, I;m gonna watch reruns of Law and Order.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-15 01:06am

JME2 wrote:Yet another expample of why I neither trust or like the U.S. court-system. Well, I;m gonna watch reruns of Law and Order.

Why? The system operated exactly as it should have, Newdow had no business suing on behalf of a daughter he didn't have legal custody of.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-06-15 01:31am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotu ... index.html

© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. wrote:...

Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," wrote Stevens.

In separate, concurring opinions, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas argued the court should have addressed the constitutional issue.

...