Grumpy

The Ninth Circuit ruling also quotes Kennedy's dissent a little differently.

The interal quotes being around "reasonable" and "full member of the political community." I realize they were probably used to set off some agreed-upon terminology, but they look like scare quotes -- especially when applied to a "reasonable" atheist.

Peregrine

I actually think the constitutionality of the Pledge is moot. The 1954 Act placing "under God" into the Pledge does not pass the Lemon Test, failing the first prong of having a primarily secular purpose. It's purpose was to create a litmus test based on xian theism.

But I don't fool myself, the full 9th will overturn the decision, based on the historical deistic reference loophole.

Bill

That "loophole" has only been approved by the Supremes where the audience consisted of "consenting adults" (i.e., elected legislators who, apparently, have the right to vote to have, or not have, prayers in their chambers at the expense, or not, of the taxpayers). When the question was forcing young school children to recite something religious, the matter has uniformly gone the other way. I think that is why Newdow himself said that this was a much stronger case for him to bring (other than attacking "In God We Trust" on money).

== Bill

Bill

Jeff:

There is a good reason that lawyers aren't supposed to quote "dicta" from opinions. It is because those "dicta" cannot be binding, even upon their author, when the "real case or controversy" to which those "dicta" are addressed is not at issue in the particular case that is before the Court. These "dicta," which is the vast bulk of what that page quotes, are worthless without a "live case or controversy" to place before the Court where the real issue of the Pledge is raised: can the state indoctrinate the child of an atheist with the words "one nation, under God?"

So far, the Supreme Court has never had an atheist bring a case before it based upon the clear issue of the state forcing the child of the atheist to recide that the United states is "one nation, under God." If (or when?) the Newdow case does get to the Supreme Court, I personally predict that Newdow will win, 6-3, if the current members of the court are all still there at the time (or if the only departure is, perhaps, Chief Justice Rhenquist, the oldest member on the current Court, since Rhenquist is generally to be found in the 3-Justice minority on church/state opinions).

== Bill