Jewel

Full story here

He represented himself before the 9th Circuit. Maybe we'll get to see how he does before the Supreme Court.

EverLastingGodStopper

I'm glad to see Newdow pressing on, albeit alone.

There is a petition, message board, and option to make Donations to help support Newdow's legal efforts on his site: http://www.restorethepledge.com/

From the news story link: I had the pleasure of meeting Michael Newdow at the GAMOW and I can't imagine him losing this case. The First Amendment seems so clear to me, to other atheists, even to many theists. I look forward the the Supreme Court's action on this landmark effort by one single person to fight the American theocracy.

I'll try to follow it here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

-Janice

atheist_in_foxhole

The bad news is that even if Newdow wins (fat chance) the fundies in Congress (assisted by spineless liberals who don't want to appear anti-religion) will just pass a Constitutional amendment to ensure that "god" remains in the pledge.

StrictSeparationist

First of all, he won't win. Second, I think the scenario you project is unlikely. The First Amendment has never been amended. It survived the huge public outcry surrounding the flag burning cases, and I think it likely that it would survive this. I could, however, see a law modifying the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as conservatives in Congress have threatened many times. That would be just about as devestating, if somewhat less permanent.

beejay

I don't think Congress would ever pass a law to restrict the Supeme Court's jurisdiction in interpreting the Constitution. (It would, after all, be unconstitutional.)

If the Supreme Court allowed such a law to stand, it would effectively end judicial review.

I know conservatives have threatened to restrict jurisdiction on other matters (and succeeded on occasion?) but I can't imagine that happening with a Constitutional issue.

Oresta

StrictSeparationist:
First of all, he won't win. Second, I think the scenario you project is unlikely. The First Amendment has never been amended. It survived the huge public outcry surrounding the flag burning cases, and I think it likely that it would survive this. I could, however, see a law modifying the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as conservatives in Congress have threatened many times. That would be just about as devestating, if somewhat less permanent.

SS, I have been following your earlier posts with delight. I agree here that,regarding the unlikelihood of any tampering with the First Amendment, it's not likely to happen. However, I would be interested in your assertion that Congress might come up with legisation to modify the Supreme Court's. jurisdiction. Would you elaborate on that, please?

StrictSeparationist

Certainly. Article III, Section 2 provides for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, vesting in it the power to decide many different types of cases, among which are "Cases... arising under this Constitution". It goes on to say that in all cases except those that involve ambassadors and cases in which a state is a party, "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".

Congress is thus vested with a power which it has never before used as a weapon- regulating and creating exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and, in fact, all federal courts). What certain conservative politicians have threatened to do after some cases whose outcome they disagreed with is to strip the Court of its jurisdiction in certain areas. One such proposal has been to take away the Court's power to decide any case that involves religion in any way. Obviously, were Congress to exercise its power to change the types of cases the Supreme Court could decide, it would have major consequences, both in an obvious practical sense, but also because it would essentially reverse two centuries of judicial supremacy. If Congress takes it upon itself to alter significantly the jurisdiction of the federal courts, it could seriously shift the balance of authority in the federal government and throw the whole concept of separation of powers into serious jeopardy.

Naturally, one would think that Congress would only consider taking such a step in the case of some sort of very serious judicial usurption of legislative power, which I do not feel is the case here. But, of course, our Congresspersons being politicians, they might consider taking this momentous step simply because they believe it would gain them some political capital.

It's hard to know whether or not our elected representatives would really shake the foundations of our system of government just to haul in some extra votes- but it's definitely not out of the question, should the Supreme Court issue a ruling favorable to Newdow. But it won't, so really this is just a rather intriguing, but remote, possibility.

Rusting Car Bumper

I'm sure Newdow is a good guy but this case is a step backwards.

It would have been better if the plantiffs of the case had been a family, even perhaps a Christian family, as opposed to someone who can be made out to be self-serving.

DC

GaryP

Any case brought by anybody is almost naturally self-serving.

And I'm not so sure that even if the Pope himself were the plaintiff would make much difference in the opinion of most Americans.

Here in Ohio a couple of years ago, the plaintiff to get the state motto changed was a Presbyterian minister from Cleveland.

We still have the state motto.:banghead:

Rusting Car Bumper

You don't understand the point. There is more at stake than jurisprudence. In fact, I'd say in these cases that the legal entanglements get outweighed by people's general impressions and the narrative they carry with them.

Whether the pledge is said or not doesn't effect people as much as how people get along and view others. Those views are effected by such irrational factors as who is the plaintiff.

For example, Rosa Parks was chosen after she was arrested for not giving up her bus seat even though others had been arrested as well. The concept of picking a plaintiff appropriately in order to break stereotypes and expose broader cultural injustice as well as wint he case is not new or novel.

Newdow simply was a bad choice. The fact is that we may only get one shot at this and Newdow may have wasted it needlessly.

DC