9th Circuit Appeals court upholds Pledge ruling

[RedImperator]

When was the War Powers Act ruled constitutional? I thought the whole big stink around it was that neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch wanted to challenge it in the Supreme Court for fear that the Court would rule in favor of the other. So, the President always asks Congress' permission for something he's going to do anyway, that way he doesn't act unilaterally and still has political room to wiggle if something goes wrong, and Congress gets appeased by being allowed to give him their permission.

You're right, I was mistaken. For some reason, I was thinking of the Independent Council Act.

[Slartibartfast]

Incidently, the point about Buddhism or Hinduism is a false one. Hindus believe that all their gods are simply different facets of a single God - And so saying "In God we Trust" for them can be effectively acknowledging the single god of which all their other gods are aspects. For Buddhists, again, "God" can be considered a philosophical concept which fits appropriately into their religion, and is hardly limited to the Judeo-Christian definition of the word.

Ah, the "it can refer to anything" argument rears its ugly head. I expect this kind of shit from the more ignorant moderates and older people in my family, but certainly not from you. There is no conceivable way "God" refers to a set of philosophical beliefs. One is a supreme being; the other is a set of tenets. This rationale of "it can refer to anything" gets more tiresome every time I hear it. If you seriously think that "God" naturally implies a set of philosophical beliefs, you desperately need a refresher course in the English language. It's quite obvious that you're taking the definition to monstrously broad lengths in order to fit your preordained conclusion that God has a place in the Pledge. When you have to resort to distorting the meaning of a word to the extreme you are, chances are your argument is bullshit.

I propose that the Pool Rules in public pools should be referred as "God"

[Slartibartfast]

I love the "unpatriotic" argument. Giveme a fuckng break. I love this country, but I hate what this country has become. I am at the point where I am willing to leave this country things have gotten so bad.

Please do leave. If you think America is a horrible place you clearly know very little about the world. Millions come here every year because they know better.

ROTFLMAO!

[Slartibartfast]

Yes I am fully aware of what this country stands for and that millions of people come here every year. That doesnt change the fact that power hungry politicians are curtailing our civil righs My right to privacy...gone. My right t freedom against searches and siezures...gone. Hell I can even be labled an enemy combatant and denied my right to due process. All I have to do is be a member of an organization that the govern ment doesnt find politically convienient.

I willstay for the next ten years, see how things go. if my some twist, the patriot acts, and total information awareness go away, my patriotism will return. But I refuse to stand by a country that spits in my face.

Alyrium, I think you're being really hysterical about this. I've got concerns about the Patroit Act but jeez, this country is still one of the best places on Earth. Good luck trying to find better.

I can think of at least a dozen places.

[Durandal]

Incidently, the point about Buddhism or Hinduism is a false one. Hindus believe that all their gods are simply different facets of a single God - And so saying "In God we Trust" for them can be effectively acknowledging the single god of which all their other gods are aspects. For Buddhists, again, "God" can be considered a philosophical concept which fits appropriately into their religion, and is hardly limited to the Judeo-Christian definition of the word.

Ah, the "it can refer to anything" argument rears its ugly head. I expect this kind of shit from the more ignorant moderates and older people in my family, but certainly not from you. There is no conceivable way "God" refers to a set of philosophical beliefs. One is a supreme being; the other is a set of tenets. This rationale of "it can refer to anything" gets more tiresome every time I hear it. If you seriously think that "God" naturally implies a set of philosophical beliefs, you desperately need a refresher course in the English language. It's quite obvious that you're taking the definition to monstrously broad lengths in order to fit your preordained conclusion that God has a place in the Pledge. When you have to resort to distorting the meaning of a word to the extreme you are, chances are your argument is bullshit.

I propose that the Pool Rules in public pools should be referred as "God"

Even better, I think that my computer should be referred to as "God," so I don't have to pay taxes on it or anything I do with it.

[Hamel]

In other news, Bill O'Reactionary apologized to his viewers this week for his threatening comments toward dissenters.

[RedImperator]

In other news, Bill O'Reactionary apologized to his viewers this week for his threatening comments toward dissenters.

Um, I know O'Reilly is a blowhard and I think he's wrong more often than he's right, but what exactly do his remarks about anti-war protesters, or his apologies for them, have to do with a debate on the Pledge of Allegiance?

[phongn]

In other news, Bill O'Reactionary apologized to his viewers this week for his threatening comments toward dissenters.

Um, I know O'Reilly is a blowhard and I think he's wrong more often than he's right, but what exactly do his remarks about anti-war protesters, or his apologies for them, have to do with a debate on the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'm not sure...maybe an attempted thread hijack?

[Wicked Pilot]

Well, I'm glad the 9th is taking a stand for what is right and constitutional. I only fear though that there will be a blacklash of Biblical (pun intended) proportions if the Supreme Court also does the right thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here is to hoping they do.

[fgalkin]

Per CNN's frontpage.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."

The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel decided 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the words "under God" at her public school.

The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.

President Bush and Congress immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine western states covered by the nation's largest -- and, critics charge, most liberal -- appeals court.

Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.

In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.

Watch the descision get overturned by the Supreme Court.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[RedImperator]

Watch the descision get overturned by the Supreme Court.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Maybe not. Here's how I see the court breaking down.

Souder, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens (the four liberals) will rule in favor of Newdow. That's practically a given, unless there's some kind of legal fuckup I don't know about.

Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas will probably rule in favor of Congress (the defendant in this case). Rhenquist I'm sure of, I'm mostly sure of Thomas. Scalia might go the other way--he's been known to surprise people.

That leaves Kennedy and O'Connor. They're conservatives, but they vote with the liberals a lot. We talk about a conservative court, but in reality, the liberals have a larger guranteed voting bloc. In a case decided on ideaology, the liberals only need to gain one vote to win. I can't predict how Kennedy and O'Connor will vote. O'Connor is most conservative on states' rights issues, and this isn't one, so she may vote with the liberals. If I had to bed, I'd say Kennedy will vote with the conservatives.

There's a chance the court will see Newdow's case as being so clear-cut that they vote 9-0 or 8-1 in favor of him (like they did against the Communications Decency Act or the ban on flag burning, both conservative issues). There's also a chance they'll rule Newdow had no grounds to bring the case and toss it out without commenting on the constitutionality of the pledge.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, if they declare the pledge constitutional, that is a nasty legal precedent. It will be hard to crawl out of it.

Now if they rule in Newdow's favor, they will not only stop government sactioned oppressio, but will blow those "christian nation" arguements out of the water.

[jegs2]

Per CNN's frontpage.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."

The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.

It's probably already been mentioned, but I don't feel like reading all these posts, so .... decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regularly are overturned (especially politically-charged issues like this one). They've become somewhat of the laughingstock of the US Court system, and their ruling certainly should come as no surprise to anyone.

[Wicked Pilot]

It's probably already been mentioned, but I don't feel like reading all these posts, so .... decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regularly are overturned (especially politically-charged issues like this one). They've become somewhat of the laughingstock of the US Court system, and their ruling certainly should come as no surprise to anyone.

Yeah, I heard of some of the stupid rulings they've handed down before, but that has no bearing on the merits of this particular case. Even if the biggest idiot in the world says 1+1=2, then they are still right.



Edit: Cool new avatar Jegs

[Durandal]

It's probably already been mentioned, but I don't feel like reading all these posts, so .... decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regularly are overturned (especially politically-charged issues like this one). They've become somewhat of the laughingstock of the US Court system, and their ruling certainly should come as no surprise to anyone.

Yes, it's already been mentioned. If it goes to the Supreme Court, there's a decent chance they may uphold the ruling (Scalia, Thomas and Renquist will vote against it, naturally), but I'd rather they simply ruled a mistrial without commenting on the actual issue.

[RedImperator]

Now if they rule in Newdow's favor, they will not only stop government sactioned oppressio, but will blow those "christian nation" arguements out of the water.

And then we'll have bacon for breakfast every morning, because pigs will fly out of--haven't I used this joke already this week?

Part of the reason I hate this case is that if Newdow wins, he's done nothing but pissed off moderate Christians. You're NEVER going to get the fundies to give up their Christian nation bullshit. If they can make Thomas Jefferson out to be a fundamentalist Christian, you can forget about anything so trivial as a Supreme Court ruling from doing it. The only fundie I know who's honest about this is, ironically, Jack Chick, who instead of arguing the Constitutional system allows for a theocracy, argues that we should scrap the Constitution in favor of a theocracy. If Newdow LOSES, however, it's a serious blow to the strict separationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The best solution is to just have Newdow's sorry ass thrown out because he had no grounds to bring the case. Then we can get back to fighting for important shit (I'm waiting for the Ohio School Board to get dragged into court for allowing intelligent design into science cirriculums).

EDIT: And shouldn't this thread be moved to Politics?

[Durandal]

Agreed. One of you supermods move the thread into Politics.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And then we'll have bacon for breakfast every morning, because pigs will fly out of--haven't I used this joke already this week?

Yes I believe it was in regards to Shep and I actually seeing eye to eye

I recognize the need for public support...but franky the moderates will get over it. They will recognise that we where right eventually(M history class is going over the McCarthy era next week. I intend to pstage the teacher)

[Durandal]

And then we'll have bacon for breakfast every morning, because pigs will fly out of--haven't I used this joke already this week?

Yes I believe it was in regards to Shep and I actually seeing eye to eye

I recognize the need for public support...but franky the moderates will get over it. They will recognise that we where right eventually(M history class is going over the McCarthy era next week. I intend to pstage the teacher)

That's assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the ruling. I'm extremely pessimistic about that. Newdow's daughter isn't really an atheist, so he'll have a bitch of a time demonstrating that he was injured as a direct result of the Pledge. The Supreme Court might just decide that he wasn't, and then toss out the ruling without actually commenting on its constitutionality. Right now, Newdow is making atheists look like whiney assholes who use their children to push their agendas, and that's not a good image.

[RedImperator]

Scroll up nine posts.