politicat

The below is from CNN.

It's part of a discussion with CNN "Legal Analyst"
Jeffrey Toobin. (Biblical Law? Canon Law?)

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/toobin.pledge.otsc/index.html" target="_blank">J. Toobin CNN Shill</a>
TOOBIN: You've got to put this decision in context. Our money says "In God we trust." Every single day that the United States Supreme Court is in session the marshal begins by saying, "God save this honorable court." God is not a forbidden word in the American government, and I think that this is an indication. If any of those nine justices, having heard "God save this honorable court" every single day, if something was wrong with it, someone might have said something.


What does the fact that other Fed institutions are violating the 1st Amendment have to do with constitutionality? That's like saying, "Everybody else poisons their mother-in-laws, so it must be fine."

And if god isn't a forbidden word, (and that is a questionable assertion) in government, then maybe it damn well should be.
We don't send our reps to make comments about us; we send them there to worry about budgets and corporations out of control and bombs and stuff. Leave the Bible and the prosletyzing at home.

Time to tell the Reps: no more showboating. Get down to business, and let us run ours.


Politicat, who has been on an emotional roller coaster for 48 hours.

Bill

The openings of Congress have had prayers since long before the Constitution was drafted. This practice has continued in unbroken procession from the meetings prior to the Declaration of Independence. So, its not surprising that the U. S. Supreme Court has opened it's own sessions with a reference to God.

The Supreme Court used these facts in deciding <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/463/783.html" target="_blank">Marsh v. Chambers</a>, 463 U.S. 783 (July 5, 1983). There is little legal argumentation in the Marsh decision. No reasoned consideration of precidents. Just "its been this way for over 200 years, so it must be OK now."

This is why it is so important to compare Dr. Newdow's battle with <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-62" target="_blank">Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe</a>, _ U.S. _ (June 19, 2000), instead of with the Marsh case, above. In the Santa Fe case, we had voluntary participation (it was a school football game, after school hours). And the current US Supreme Court (the same members as today) ruled 6 to 3 that it was a violation of the Constitution for the state to sponsor a prayer being read over the Public Address system owned by the state to a "captive audience" containing school kids.

Well, the recitation of the Pledge in a public school classroom is even more problematic than the recitation of a prayer in a football stadium. We are dealing with the most impressionable of young minds, and the state is inculcating a belief in God as part of the formal opening of the school day.

If the U. S. Supreme Court uses the exact same legal standards as were used for the Santa Fe case, this Pledge matter will be decided in favor of dropping the words "under God." On the other hand, if the Supremes go with the Marsh case, it will go the other way, and be largely inexplicable in the overall scheme of the law.

My personal bet is that, if this case does get to the Supreme Court, the Justices will have a very bad day the day that they issue their opinion (in other words, they will be held up to ridicule by court scholars if they rule against Newdow and they will be held up to ridicule by the public if they do not).

But so far, roughly half of the legal scholars I've seen interviewed seem to agree that the Newdow decision was correct on the merits of the legal argument. I suspect that if more of those folks actually studied this area of law more carefully, the level of agreement might approach 80 to 90% (a very high percentage of agreement for legal scholars on "close" issues).

== Bill

himynameisPwn

The problem with this case is, its almost certainly going to be a 5-4 descision. You have people like Scalia who interpret the constitution literally. I don't even know how thats possible considering any of the history. Basic, basic US history teaches us it shouldn't be taken word by word but rather by the spirit. The problem is when 3 of the judges have the same opinion and they have the case decided before the case starts. In my opinion, it will all come down to one judge. Expect to see an admendment passed if this case fails.

Arrowman

One little thing:
If any of those nine justices, having heard "God save this honorable court" every single day, if something was wrong with it, someone might have said something.

So, the "legal analyst" thinks court cases are initiated by judges...