Stephen Maturin

The Justice Department and the Elk Grove Unified School District today petitioned the Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Newdow v. U.S. Congress.

Washington Post article.

Paragon of integrity that he is, Ted Olson advised the Supreme Court as follows in the DoJ's cert. petition:

Summary reversal?! Jiminy Jesus Fuck, Ted! That whole paragraph is a textbook example of "all balls, no brains" syndrome in action.

And here's what Ashcroft had to offer in the DoJ's press release:

Feather

:banghead:


It's enough to make me puke.

dangin

That's it, I'm building a time machine and going back to kick washington, madison, and jefferson in the butt until they are a little more definitive about separation. Couldn't they leave no room for doubt. They thought everyone would always remember living under a tyrranical monarchy ordained by god like they fought a revolution against.

Toto

What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't they understand?

Jewel

Hmmmm... IGWT has been our national motto for hundreds of years?????:banghead: :banghead: It hasn't even been 50!

I think I need a shower after reading that.

Shai Hulud

They made the simple mistake of assuming that people would be able to understand a simple sentence.
Don't let it get you down.
It happens to the best of us, even god.
"You shall not kill. " doesn't seem to be clear enough for some people.

Shai-Hulud

hezekiah jones

Thumbs down is right. What a pair of blockheads.

And what standard of review does "summary reversal" entail? De fuckyouIsaidso?

Stephen Maturin

It's the same standard of review (de novo in this case), but all the usual procedures get bypassed. In a typical appeal involving plenary review, the parties get to file detailed merit briefs, participate in oral argument and all that happy bullshit. Olson is basically saying that the court of appeals bollixed things so badly that the Supreme Court should reverse here and now, at the cert stage. No briefing, no argument, no nuthin'.

As I understand it, six justices have to agree before the Court will reverse a decision summarily. The case needs to be pretty much a complete slam dunk for that to happen, and Newdow ain't no kinda slam dunk.

I've been wondering how the Justice Department planned to justify carrying the ball on this appeal. There were three federal defendants named in Newdow's complaint: Congress, the President and the USA itself. The trial court dismissed the claims against all three. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal as to Congress and the President, and so far as I can tell, Newdow didn't even pursue a separate claim against the USA in the Ninth Circuit. The Senate tried to intervene, but the court wouldn't let them. In its amended decision the Ninth Circuit abandoned its earlier ruling that the 1954 Act adding "under God" to the Pledge was unconstitutional. Seems to me that the only party with a legitimate gripe about the court of appeals' decision is that California school district.

Despite all that, Olson files a cert petition on behalf of the USA. Where the hell does a prevailing party get off initiating an appeal to the Supreme Court? Well, now we know. According to the cert petition:

"Should be deemed to have intervened as of right"? :banghead: Seems like a mighty slender reed to me. Olson shoveled more horseshit in Bush v. Gore than most people could shovel in a thousand lifetimes. Looks like he was just warming up, and these day he gets to do his shoveling on the taxpayers' dime.

I really need to put that goddamned cert petition down and leave it alone. Reading that load of codswollop is frosting my nuts through and through.

dangin

That part is clear, but "establishment" is problematic. Today idiots think that means setting up a church as a proprietor. Establish a club, establish a business, establish a church. When in fact it has far reaching implications into any type of support.

They should have said that one cent of government money used for or in support of anything religious is out. If a structure was paid for partially or in whole by public funds, there can be no religious use of that structure. If equipment was paid for partially or in whole by public funds, there can be no religious use of that equipment. If a person is salaried in part or whole by public funds, that person cannot officially recognize religion in anyway in any of their offical duties. Clear and simple.

Prayer at graduation - out
prayer on the PA before public school sporting events - out
prayer in school - out
prayer proclamations from government officials - out
national day of prayer and fasting - out
tax dollars to rebuild churches - out
it's so freaking simple.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
I really need to put that goddamned cert petition down and leave it alone.

LOL.

Well, you do a good job prying open the procedural tangles. Thanks.

Better clear your plate before June 2: oral arguments at the 11th Circuit in Moore v. Glassroth.