Sephiroth

I'm indifferent to this ruling. It's a good thing that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is doing their best to uphold the Constitution but I think it'll be dead when it reaches the Supremes given it's record on the past and it's B.S. about "ceremonial Deism". Not only that, the atheist who files the lawsuit just had to sound like O'Hair and the Christians on TV are ranting and raving like rabid dogs so this isn't going to be good for PR either.

Sephiroth

No, as it would be a violation of Freedom of Speech.

Nickle

Is anybody else watching Jerry Falwell on CNN? Calling Rev. Barry Lynn "anti-God" was a funny tidbit.

ksagnostic

No kidding. Of course, a prerequisite for being in Congress is an ability to grandstand. I say the pledge of allegiance, but I have always omitted "under God" (and I did get some flack from it at one place I worked, but I was the supervisor, and it was from a subordinate--I ignored her). Now we're going to have people listening for those of us who omit it. We've been put in the crosshairs, and I'm not sure I appreciate it.

Stephen Maturin

Hezekiah,

You can find detailed info on 9th Circuit en banc procedures <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/documents.nsf/92f189376da994a0882567dd00617f3f/674c8c01d0f4ee63882566d3007e6a70?OpenDocument" target="_blank">here</a>. In brief, all active judges vote on whether to grant an en banc rehearing. If a majority votes to allow reconsideration, then the case gets decided by an 11-judge panel consisting of the Chief Judge (Mary Schroeder) and ten active judges drawn by lot. Apparently, judges with senior status don't participate in any of this.

So, what happens next? If the 9th Cir. reverses itself, I suspect that the Supreme Court won't take the case at all.

If the 9th Cir. ruling remains intact, the odds of the Supremes refusing to hear the case are slim. Once it takes the case, the Court has plenty of options. If a majority is inclined to overrule, it can do so without even reaching the merits by holding that Newdow lacked standing to challenge the law in question. That isn't at all likely. The Court would have to eviscerate a ton of precedent to do that, and its ruling wouldn't even pass the straight face test.

When it comes to counting heads for a vote on the merits, it's anyone's guess. The only votes to affirm that I'm reasonably confident about are Stevens and Ginsburg. If the others go along with what they themselves have written in past cases, then the 9th Cir. ruling gets affirmed. However, this is a mighty squirrely bunch of people we're talking about. For example, I can easily see O'Connor and Kennedy voting to reverse based on some twisted, bizarre (and, of course, unexpressed) notion of restoring public confidence in the Court.

Time will tell. In the meantime, though, the folks at RNC headquarters can kick back and watch the $$$ roll in.

Edited to add: Just read a blurb from an AP article in which Laurence Tribe is quoted as saying that a reversal is almost certain.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]</p>

GunnerJ

Thunbs up for the decision on TV talk shows. I was literally sick to my stomach watching "Alan Keyes id Making Sense" and Falwell ripping into some complaint token liberal on Faux News.

Prometevsberg

Dr. Andrew Newdows homepage
&lt;http://www.restorethepledge.com/&gt;

Principia

I wonder if we have heard any support or opinions from theists on this board?

Nickle

According to the Dallas Morning News:
Tom Daschle called the ruling "nuts"

Sen. Christopher Bond (R) says "our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves"
(??!!??! history scholar there)

John Ashcroft "this decision is directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition" (must be that new math)

edited to add: GW should just keep that foot in his mouth. Why take it out when it will just have to be crammed back in.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

braces_for_impact

Sigh, it now seems the GOP is turning this into a politcal issue, claiming how left the entire court has become. They are citing imbalance of the court as dangerous and resulting in "junk" rulings. Apparently they wish to drive a wedge between the democrats and profit from the situation. While it is true that 14 of the court members were appointed by Clinton, and the majority is certainly leftist, the key judge here was a Nixon appointee. If this is the justification for congress trying to overule a court, then will they have to look at all rulings since the court has been "unbalanced"? How does one conclude that a court is indeed unbalanced? I find it disturbing that one would rather shake confidence in the court system than let go of their superstitions. Fox news has been bringing out many "junk cases" by the 9th circuit court in an attempt to discredit this ruling. I would be interested in seeing some "junk" cases of other courts for comparison. Anyone know where to look?