Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Apikorus · 09-14-2005, 01:40 PM

Read all about it!

MarcelLionheart · 09-14-2005, 01:45 PM

Holy shit. But, can this ruling be overturned?

external solipsism · 09-14-2005, 01:46 PM

They're already talking about this in CSS.

Toto · 09-14-2005, 02:09 PM

CSS thread is here

Toto · 09-14-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Because this court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Newdow III, it follows that the school districts’ policies violate the Establishment Clause. Accordingly, upon a properly supported motion, the court must enter a restraining order to that effect. Because of that conclusion, however, as I explain below, it follows that the plaintiffs' federal claims are rendered moot.

. . .

In the case at bar, the plaintiffs' claims, in so far as they relate to the in-class pledges, are resolved because the Ninth Circuit has held that the school policy mandating the Pledge is unconstitutional, and as the court indicated above, upon proper motion it will issue an appropriate injunction. Upon the issuance of that injunction, plaintiffs will no longer suffer from an injury-in-fact which would require redress from this court. Thus, any claims relating to federal statute must be dismissed.

???

The parents also challenged the pledge as recited at school board meetings:

Quote:

. . . In essence, plaintiffs argue that they are branded with a "political outsider" status.

Plaintiffs' arguments must be rejected. The Pledge itself does not compel recitation anywhere, at any time. Thus, properly understood, plaintiffs are complaining about a school board policy or practice. Yet the present complaint does not seek relief from that practice but attacks the content of the Pledge, which is significant only because of that practice.

Even it this were not the case, however, the present status of Establishment Clause jurisprudence compels rejection of plaintiffs’ claim in this regard. It cannot be gainsaid that the practice of reciting the Pledge in the context of adults attending a school board meeting tenders a different question than the recitation of the Pledge in a classroom. . . . Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

Worldtraveller · 09-14-2005, 02:33 PM

I disagree with much of the reasoning, but I recognize that the judge's hands are pretty much tied at that level.

I do however, really like this bit which is a footnote at the very end of the decision.

Quote:

Moreover, because the doctrine is inherently a boundaryless slippery slope, any conclusion might pass muster. It might be remembered that it was only a little more than one hundred ago that the Supreme Court of this nation declared without hesitation, after reviewing the history of religion in this country, that “this is a Christian nation.�? Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892). As preposterous as it might seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for substituting “under Christ�? for “under God�? in the pledge, thus marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, as the present form of the Pledge does, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents who, not only are citizens of this nation, but in fact reside in this judicial district.

Cheers,
Lane

Heathen57 · 09-14-2005, 02:34 PM

The idea of a forced pledge is worthless in my opinion and the addition of the words 'under God' just makes it worse. I really hope Newdow prevails this time.

Dick Springer · 09-14-2005, 02:39 PM

I may be wrong (it has happened before) but I suspect that it will a tactical disaster. It is hard to imagine that a Supreme Court majority would support the district judge, and a decision upholding the pledge including 'under god' in school exercises would have to include language that would hurt us in other areas. The Fourth Circuit decision that reciting the pledge is a "patriotic exerecise" and therefore not a statement of official religious belief is an example of what is possible. Abuse of language (as courts sometimes are prone to) can work wonders in undermining our basic rights.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the decision of the district judge, I would expect irresistible pressure to pass a Constitutional amendment. Then it's goodbye to the rights of nonbelievers. Fortunately for us, the Supreme Court ducked the issue last time.

EsoCyn · 09-14-2005, 03:01 PM

When did the United States courts get a sense of legality?

Hyndis · 09-14-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

As preposterous as it might seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for substituting “under Christ�? for “under God�? in the pledge, thus marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, as the present form of the Pledge does, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents who, not only are citizens of this nation, but in fact reside in this judicial district.

Err...Buddhism doesn't really have a deity. And some religions have multiple deities, so more than just atheists would be annoyed at this.

Also, who the heck do people think the "under god" part refers to? It certainly ain't "under Allah."

But this ruling is some nice progress. Hopefully its solid and logical enough that SCOTUS will simply have to affirm the decision. If they're going to overturn the decision, they need to explain why they're doing it, and if they can't do that, then they can't overturn it.

(In theory, at least. I'm sure its perfectly legal for SCOTUS to overturn something, using the rationale of "its icky.")

09-14-2005, 01:40 PM	#21
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	"Under God" in Pledge ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL Read all about it!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2005, 01:45 PM	#22
MarcelLionheart Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London, England Posts: 2,910	Holy shit. But, can this ruling be overturned?

09-14-2005, 01:46 PM	#23
external solipsism Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Posts: 840	They're already talking about this in CSS.

09-14-2005, 02:09 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	CSS thread is here

09-14-2005, 02:34 PM	#27
Heathen57 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA Posts: 24	The idea of a forced pledge is worthless in my opinion and the addition of the words 'under God' just makes it worse. I really hope Newdow prevails this time.

09-14-2005, 02:39 PM	#28
Dick Springer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Scarborough, ME 04074 Posts: 1,892	I may be wrong (it has happened before) but I suspect that it will a tactical disaster. It is hard to imagine that a Supreme Court majority would support the district judge, and a decision upholding the pledge including 'under god' in school exercises would have to include language that would hurt us in other areas. The Fourth Circuit decision that reciting the pledge is a "patriotic exerecise" and therefore not a statement of official religious belief is an example of what is possible. Abuse of language (as courts sometimes are prone to) can work wonders in undermining our basic rights. If the Supreme Court were to uphold the decision of the district judge, I would expect irresistible pressure to pass a Constitutional amendment. Then it's goodbye to the rights of nonbelievers. Fortunately for us, the Supreme Court ducked the issue last time.

09-14-2005, 03:01 PM	#29
EsoCyn Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,415	When did the United States courts get a sense of legality?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.