Supreme Court to hear Pledge case

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-14 04:58pm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... edge_x.htm

Unfortunately, this is probably going to end up in a reversal.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-14 05:04pm

McClellan would not say definitely whether the White House would press its position before the court but previewed what it would argue if it did. "Keep in mind," he said, "that you have a Declaration of Independence that refers to God or the creator four different times. You have sessions of Congress each day that begin with prayer and, of course, if you look on our own currency, it says "In God We Trust.'"

So this is the basic argument that the US is a Christian-founded country, correct?

~ver

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-14 05:09pm

The Decleration is not law, and the other arguements are just begging the question. You would think most people with a brain would see through this.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-14 05:16pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:The Decleration is not law, and the other arguements are just begging the question. You would think most people with a brain would see through this.

Exactly.. but they're trying to show by the Declaration of Independence referring to God that it is somehow an authority over the Constituton in that this is supposedly a Christian country. Am I correct in thinking this?

This is what happens when we have fundies in power. [sighs]

~ver

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-14 05:20pm

Fuck them all.

Hopefully, at the very worst, this will be a 4-4 split, in which case the original ruling will stand. Although I would rather see at least a 5-3 in our favor, seeing we're right.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-10-14 05:56pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Fuck them all.

Hopefully, at the very worst, this will be a 4-4 split, in which case the original ruling will stand. Although I would rather see at least a 5-3 in our favor, seeing we're right.

Which Judge is out of the Ruling?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-14 06:03pm

Straha wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Fuck them all.

Hopefully, at the very worst, this will be a 4-4 split, in which case the original ruling will stand. Although I would rather see at least a 5-3 in our favor, seeing we're right.
Which Judge is out of the Ruling?

Scalia will recuse himself because he made public comments criticizing the 9th Circuit's decision earlier in the year. That's one vote to overturn the ruling gone.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-10-14 06:57pm

I really don't care how they rule, but hopefully, they won't use the "we're founded on Christian ideals" reasoning.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-14 07:21pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I really don't care how they rule, but hopefully, they won't use the "we're founded on Christian ideals" reasoning.

They won't. Right-wingers in Bunktussel, Arkansas can get away with that at the district and maybe even state level, but national-level political leader caught saying that this is a Christian nation on national media will catch massive amounts of criticism.

More likely, they'd say that the establishment clause only prohibits the endorsement of specific religions, and not religious categories, like monotheism vs. polytheism vs. atheism (and yes, they'll probably consider atheism to be a religion) if they decide to overturn the 9th Circuit Court's ruling. This would seem a little more than unlikely, though, since there are massive amounts of records which tell us that this was not what the founding fathers intended when they decided on the wording of the clause, like the annals of Congress. But you never know. The defense will probably play the Patriotism card, saying that the phrase is considered patriotic and thus cannot be stricken.

There's also the public reaction angle to consider. If the Supremes uphold the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, atheists are not exactly going to skyrocket in the popularity polls. In fact, any public leader who wants to get reelected will come out and criticize the decision immediately, much like what happened when the 9th Circuit Court originally ruled on this issue. People are stupid, and they'll interpret the upholding of the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to mean that it's illegal to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Based on that, they'll start whining about how we're catering to political correctness. If you want something to be demeaned in importance, just find some way to call it political correctness, and you'll succeed.

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.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-14 07:28pm

I can't help but wonder if the fundies will find some creative way of getting around this ruling, assuming it is upheld (like how they use The Moment of Silence to get around not being allowed to pray in school).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-14 07:46pm

This would be better at home in N&P, so I'm moving it there.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-10-14 07:51pm

Well, the only thing we can really do is hope that democracy works in our favor.

I personally am willing to risk possible repurcussions against atheists by the public at large.. And in the mean time will do what I cn to change peoples opinions. It is the most any of us can do. and we must not stand by and allow our rights to be trampled.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-15 02:39am

Weather you are for it, or against it, it will probably be overturned. Newdow will have a hard time keeping his claim of damage when his daughter is a practicing Christian and has claimed that the Pledge did not affect her. He has little standing with his claim.

If they were going to bring a case like this, they should have found a stronger one than this. It won't stand.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-15 02:49am

Actually, the Supremes are only going to rule on the practice of having teachers lead their students in reciting the Pledge. They will not rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge itself. They are wise.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-15 02:52am

Durandal wrote:Actually, the Supremes are only going to rule on the practice of having teachers lead their students in reciting the Pledge. They will not rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge itself. They are wise.

Hmm, I thought that the 9th Circut Court ruled on Newdow's claim? Wouldn't the SCOUS have to review that if it takes the case?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-15 02:21pm

Isn't this the same guy who wants to ban gender specific personal pronouns?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-15 02:30pm

Do you think Scelia recuses himself because of his comments or because deep down inside he does not want to rule the "under God" phrase unconstitional?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-10-15 02:42pm

Keep in mind that when the Supremes accept to hear a case its usually to reverse a decision not to affirm. 9 times out of 10 that means reversal, very rarely do they affirm, usually only to distinguish a certain area of law.

And if you think they already don't know which way they're going to rule I have a bridge to sell you here in NYC.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-15 03:09pm

Stravo wrote: And if you think they already don't know which way they're going to rule I have a bridge to sell you here in NYC.

Somehow I don't think that came out right..

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-15 03:16pm

Stravo wrote:Keep in mind that when the Supremes accept to hear a case its usually to reverse a decision not to affirm. 9 times out of 10 that means reversal, very rarely do they affirm, usually only to distinguish a certain area of law.

To play devil's advocate, might they be willing to hear it considering the sheer amount of political bullhickey stirred up by it?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-10-15 03:25pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stravo wrote:Keep in mind that when the Supremes accept to hear a case its usually to reverse a decision not to affirm. 9 times out of 10 that means reversal, very rarely do they affirm, usually only to distinguish a certain area of law.
To play devil's advocate, might they be willing to hear it considering the sheer amount of political bullhickey stirred up by it?

The Supremes have consistently avoided hearing abortion cases and there is plenty of Politcal pressure there. Quite frankly its a waste of their precious few slots to hear a case when they are in session to simply hear the arguments and affirm a decision.

They usually secretly do a head count and see which way they are inclined to vote. If they see a consensus to overturn then they accept the case. And even then they usually only accept a case that has some importance, like settling a point of law that has become confused or if there is significant political effect that the ruling will have.

Rarely will the arguments themselves sway the judges. In fact if you watch them in session they actually guide the attorneys making the arguments to address points that they want to use in their decision.

For instance Scalia may have an issue with states rights in a ruling. A justice on the other side of the argument would stop the attorney making the argument and ask him something like "What about states rights in this issue counselor?"

There have even been instances where justices use the attorneys to debate each other with the attorneys as intermediaries. To use the same example from above, Scalia may counter by asking the opposing counsel "Isn't it true counsel that the issue of states right would be severly impacted by what the other side argues?"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-15 06:31pm

Knife wrote:
Durandal wrote:Actually, the Supremes are only going to rule on the practice of having teachers lead their students in reciting the Pledge. They will not rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge itself. They are wise.
Hmm, I thought that the 9th Circut Court ruled on Newdow's claim? Wouldn't the SCOUS have to review that if it takes the case?

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.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-15 06:36pm

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.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-15 07:07pm

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.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-10-15 07:13pm

I have to agree with Pilot on this...

Though I must say... If it comes down to it... If SCOTUS overturns on the technicality... We can always try again at a later date.