Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AJ the greek · 07-21-2002, 08:27 AM

Taken off the II Newswire:

<a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd070202.htm" target="_blank">Policy Committee Web Page</a>

Quote:

Third, and perhaps the most compelling view, is that the judges followed the law as they saw it - and that they merely took the next step along the course that the Supreme Court has set. The Washington Post quoted a professor of law who said the decision "is eminently defensible" because the judges were "applying principles the Supreme Court has established."

Quote:

Any lawyer can point to facts that would make the Pledge case even more constitutionally compelling than Santa Fe School District and Weisman.(AJ: Student Initiated Prayer Cases) In the Pledge case, the "forbidden words" were spoken daily in an elementary school by a familiar, government-paid authority figure as part of an official, in-school program, and attendance at school is compulsory (but saying the Pledge cannot be made compulsory, W. Va. State Bd. Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

Quote:

It is true that the Supreme Court has hinted that the saying of the Pledge in public school may be okay, even with its "one Nation under God" phrase. Yet those hints were weak (and, of course, in dicta).

Even Scalia basically agrees,

Quote:

When Lee v. Weisman struck down prayers at a graduation ceremony, Justice Scalia (writing for himself and three others), 505 U.S. at 638-39, argued that the same rationale would have to apply to the Pledge, which the students had recited just before hearing the invocation:

"The opinion manifests that the Court itself has not given careful consideration to its test of psychological coercion. For if it had, how could it observe, with no hint of concern or disapproval, that students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, which immediately preceded Rabbi Gutterman's invocation? The government can, of course, no more coerce political orthodoxy than religious orthodoxy. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Moreover, since the Pledge of Allegiance has been revised since Barnette to include the phrase 'under God,' recital of the Pledge would appear to raise the same Establishment Clause issue as the invocation and benediction. If students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced, moments before, to stand for (and thereby, in the Court's view, take part in or appear to take part in) the Pledge. Must the Pledge therefore be barred from the public schools (both from graduation ceremonies and from the classroom)? In Barnette we held that a public school student could not be compelled to recite the Pledge; we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence - indeed, even to stand in respectful silence - when those who wished to recite it did so. Logically, that ought to be the next project for the Court's bulldozer."

All sounds good to me, of course this policy opinion is unsigned, no senator would go near this with a ten foot pole so soon after voting in lockstep for the god-ful pledge.

There is sufficient precedent for the 9th circuit opinion, even the GOP staffers who wrote this know it, they just are under the radar for now.

The next few years are gonna get very interesting

Toto · 07-21-2002, 10:23 AM

I'm afraid that the Republicans, like Scalia, draw a different conclusion from this. If adding "under God" to the pledge violates the Constitution, then they will argue for amending the Constitution or appointing judges who will interpret it differently.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-21-2002, 11:24 AM

This is NOT a document in favor of the pledge decision. What the document basically states is 'See, this is what you get when you have liberals and democrats select judges for you."

What you are seeing here is the first set of maneuvers in what will be an attempt to make the liberal anti-God leaning of the court a political issue in the next election.

The campaign slogan will be that it is time to take needed steps in reversing years of perverse rulings from the court, and to put in judges who will interpret the Constitution and the Law the way we want it interpreted.

Put the liberals back in control of selecting judges, and you can expect more of the same, or worse.

It will be used to solicit tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from churches and others on the religious right, as well as to solicit an even greater amount of volunteer labor.

Watch for it. It will happen

AJ the greek · 07-21-2002, 06:19 PM

Well I don't know what it all means, but I was surprised they were admitting to reality and case law and not the usual bullshit you hear on TV.

Grumpy · 07-22-2002, 01:23 PM

Correct, AJ. The surprising thing about the policy statement is that it invalidates the "Stupid Judges" criticism. Apart from the chilling subtext that all judges are stupid.

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

07-21-2002, 10:23 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I'm afraid that the Republicans, like Scalia, draw a different conclusion from this. If adding "under God" to the pledge violates the Constitution, then they will argue for amending the Constitution or appointing judges who will interpret it differently.

07-21-2002, 11:24 AM	#3
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	This is NOT a document in favor of the pledge decision. What the document basically states is 'See, this is what you get when you have liberals and democrats select judges for you." What you are seeing here is the first set of maneuvers in what will be an attempt to make the liberal anti-God leaning of the court a political issue in the next election. The campaign slogan will be that it is time to take needed steps in reversing years of perverse rulings from the court, and to put in judges who will interpret the Constitution and the Law the way we want it interpreted. Put the liberals back in control of selecting judges, and you can expect more of the same, or worse. It will be used to solicit tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from churches and others on the religious right, as well as to solicit an even greater amount of volunteer labor. Watch for it. It will happen

07-21-2002, 06:19 PM	#4
AJ the greek Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: out there Posts: 140	Well I don't know what it all means, but I was surprised they were admitting to reality and case law and not the usual bullshit you hear on TV.

07-22-2002, 01:23 PM	#5
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Correct, AJ. The surprising thing about the policy statement is that it invalidates the "Stupid Judges" criticism. Apart from the chilling subtext that all judges are stupid.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.