dangin

Make it simple. Point out that GOD ALMIGHTY doesn't really need forced homage. God is omni everything, he made people "free" to worship as they saw fit. Shouldn't the government simply follow god's example?

Or write something ironic and sarcastic. Talk about how much god needs legislative protection or he will be powerless and fade away.

beekay

I actually gave some thought as to what kind of voice I'll use when writing about this. I think it would be much better to just take a friendly, informative tone rather than a sarcastic or mean tone. I don't want to give folks a reason to dismiss what I have to say without actually looking at the content, if you know what I mean. I already have "enemies" in the community from when I had made it clear in one of my columns that I am an atheist. Fun fun fun ...

Stephen Maturin

Well, you've gotta give credit where credit's due, I suppose. Cramming that much horseshit into that small a container is no easy task, but the author of this letter to the editor somehow managed.

Hyperbolic drivel. The court is doing no such thing. Even if it were, the simple truth of the matter is that courts aren't obliged to provide a forum for "the majority of Americans" to air their grievances with particular rulings. That's not the judiciary's job. Looks like someone needs to take a remedial civics course.

Here's a prime example of the old adage that if you tell the same lie enough times, people will eventually accept it as gospel. As Mageth correctly pointed out, the ruling didn't "ban[] the Pledge of Allegiance from our schools."

Also, conspicuously absent from the writer's tirade is any mention of the fact that the Ninth Circuit's ruling has no legal effect. The court stayed its judgment soon after the ruling came down, and that stay is still in effect.

Irrelevant. Resolving questions of constitutional law isn't a "majority rules" proposition. I suspect the separate-but-equal doctrine had "overwhelming public support" too. For that matter, so did the original version of the Pledge.

"Lengthy delays," my narrow lilywhite ass. First of all, the alleged delays have nothing to do with the court. Sandra Banning, the mother of the child referenced in the lawsuit, and the U.S. Senate filed motions to intervene, i.e., to join in the case as parties. Those motions presented complex standing and separation-of-powers questions. The court couldn't act on the petitions for reconsideration and rehearing until it answerwed those questions and ruled on the motions, which it did in early December.

Further "delay" resulted from the fact that every right wing nutburger organization on the planet felt compelled to file an amicus brief. Blaming that shitstorm of paper on the court is just plain unconscionable.

Moreover, there hasn't really been any "delay" at all. The panel's ruling is but seven months old. All things considered, the court is moving remarkably fast. If the writer genuinely believes that this relatively small lapse of time qualifies as substantial delay, then s/he's woefully ignorant about how appellate courts operate.

I've got no idea whether or not this is true, but I'm inclined to believe it. The question becomes, so what?

Courts decide actual disputes presented by actual litigants. Period. End of story. No one other than the parties to the proceeding has a "right" to be heard. Provisions allowing a non-party to file a brief as an amicus curiae are a narrow exception to the general rule.

Beastmaster and Beejay have done a fine job explaining what an amicus curiae is. Here's some speculation as to why these amicus briefs might have been rejected:

- The Ninth Circuit rule cited by Beastmaster mandates filing a motion for leave to file an amicus brief. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of these clowns filed their briefs without even asking permission.

- Subdivision (e) of the rule provides that "[a]n amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed." The original decision was rendered in June of 2002. The "principal briefs" of the parties were filed long before that. Seems to me that the amicus briefs of these johnny-come-latelys were filed way the hell out of rule.

- A couple of the proposed amicus briefs I read were just unmitigated garbage. The argument basically boiled down to, "Pledge good! No hurt Pledge!"

- The well-written and properly supported briefs I've read were duplicative. They made the same arguments, cited the same case law and offered the court nothing new to consider. If several amicii are supporting the same party, they'd be well advised to meet, group think an overall approach and take steps to ensure that they don't duplicate one another's work. That obviously didn't happen here. These organizations don't work and play well with others, even their fellow lunatics.

I couldn't find the actual brief on grassfire's website, but there is a photo of it that you can access from this page. I rather doubt that 50,000 people actually signed the brief. Judging from the photo, it appears that they may have attached hard copies of their online petition to the brief as an exhibit. If all those people really did sign the brief, then there's a whole lotta unauthorized practice of law goin' on.

Oh, deary dear. Listen up, Skippy. All you've got here is a ruling that you don't like. That doesn't qualify as "bias" by any stretch of the imagination.

Good luck with drafting your response, Beekay. I'm sure you'll do a first-rate job, not to mention a far more civil and measured job than I could ever manage.

Shake

Forgive my lack of legal expertise, but is this maybe because the court has already ruled on this case? As pointed out above there is no new perspective brought to the case by these groups.

This reminds me of A Few Good Men when Demi Moore's character strenuously objects to a line of questioning. The judge having already decided not to hear the objection states that her objection has been noted, but unless she has anything new to add that he has ruled and will not hear an objection at that point. It's a funny scene, I wish I could remember the lines better. Then Kevin Pollak makes fun of her after that part of the trial.

beekay

As promised, here is my article. Will run tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.

http://www.haughtbk.com/wc012903.html

Many thanks to everyone for their help!

beejay

Good article.

Thanks for the link.

Philosoft

Lt. Weinberg: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor!" "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh! You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."

Shake

Yeah, yeah! That's it! Thanks, Philo!

RufusAtticus

If public opinion is all that matters:

"Fifty-seven percent believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases (ABC News poll). Minority, shut up and sit down.

Fifty-three percent believe the Roe v. Wade decision was a "good thing" for the country (Gallup). Minority, shut up and sit down.

Only 46 percent favor military action in Iraq if inspectors find that Saddam has the ability to make weapons (Pew Research). Shut up and sit down.

Eighty-four percent believe you can be a good American without religious faith (Pew). Minority, shut up and sit down.

Sixty-six percent favor government help for the needy, even if it means forgoing tax cuts (Pew). Minority, shut up and sit down.

Sixty-nine percent believe it should be illegal to use a hand-held cell phone while driving (ABC News). Minority, just shut up.

And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would not be president."

Source

beekay

I read that column a little while ago too. Great one, isn't it? Makes me think, "damn, wish I had thought of that."