Toto

:banghead:

Scalia Discusses Church-State Separation

Read it and weep

What is a Supreme Court Justice doing commenting on a case that might reach the Supreme Court?

kwigibo

whaddayaknow, i just read the story at salon.com. Scalia does a great job upholding the truth here, like any good justice

always?

gilly54

By making this statement, is Scalia trying to:

1. intimidate Dr. Newdow and the 9th Circuit Court judges from proceeding with Newdow's case

2. lay the groundwork to (hopefully)recuse himself should the case make it to the SC

If he recuses himself, then there would be eight justices with no one to be a tie-breaker, correct?

If he doesn't recuse himself, I would think that whoever is representing or assisting Dr. Newdow would insist that Scalia recuse himself based on this statement.

hezekiah jones

However, the justice said he believes such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts.

Er, the decision to add "under God" was made legislatively, by Congress in 1954. Does Nino think the legislature should be the branch of government to correct its own unconstitutional legislation?

atheist_in_foxhole

And now Joe Lieberman's on TV announcing his presidential campaign and mentioning "god" and "faith" every three seconds. It looks like the 2004 race is going be drenched in religion and superstition just like 2000 was. :banghead:

simian

From the article cited above:
Now is it just me, or wasn't "get religion out of government already adopted by the whole country? My impression is that this is one of the items the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution addresses.

What Scalia seems to be saying is that he feels the majority can pass any legislation they want without the need for any judicial review. Hello again, Jim Crow (actually, Mohummad Al-Crow is more likely at this point).

Is this the same Justice that says judges who disagree with the death penalty should step down because the DP is the law of the land, yet doesn't apply the same principle when it comes to the abortion issue?

And to think, Bush has at least 2 years to stack the courts with people who think this way...

Simian

Shadowy Man

Uh... Did they read the ruling? It doesn't bar students from saying the Pledge with "under God"...

Is the concept of what happened in the Newdow case really outside of most people's understanding??

fromtheright

Let me toss out for discussion sake (though I have little doubt where most of you stand)--who is to correct mistakes of the Supreme Court?

For myself, I do believe that the Supreme Court, whether I like their decision or not and whether it is correct or not, does have the final say short of a Constitutional amendment. On this (and a few other questions) I disagree with Bork.

crazyfingers

No kidding! If upheld it would bar the government from proscribing a religious oath that essentially tells everyone that monotheism is the preferred belief, according to the government.

It's not that hard to understand. I wonder how Scalia actually worded his comments. Is he that confused also?

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by fromtheright:
"For myself, I do believe that the Supreme Court, whether I like their decision or not, does have the final say short of a Constitutional amendment."

I agree, which is why I find Scalia's remark puzzling. And short of amending the Constitution, Congress does have the ability to rewrite legislation invalidated by the courts in an attempt to make it more Constitution-friendly, as in its recent efforts to regulate access to pornography on the internet.

Like all federal judges, Scalia has been party to overturning legislative efforts which he found unconstitutional. If Scalia really believes it is solely within the legislature's power to invalidate its own unconstitutional actions, he should therefore dissent from every "activist" decision.

Additionally, administrative agencies have the option not to enforce existing legislation. As far as I know, there are still adultery statutes on the books in Wisconsin, but no DA in this state would ever attempt to prosecute using them. The same goes for a few other states that still have laws barring atheists from participating in the electoral process.

Equally remarkable is Scalia's claim that the 9th Circuit's opinion in Newdow has "some plausible support." Personally I think that is an understatement. Although Newdow was widely criticized, I have never come across a substantive objection to its argument, and that includes its own dissent. Apparently what Scalia means by "plausible support" is the fact that the Establishment Clause portion of Newdow is nearly entirely based on Supreme Court precedent, authority which the 9th Circuit is compelled to follow.

Scalia is a pretty funny guy. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't losing his marbles.