|
Judge Denies Bid to Block Inaugural Prayer
EFL.Too bad, Mike. Maybe next time. And there'll be one, won't there, asscrack... An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration. U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit in a federal appeals court in California last year. You can't stop ME! I'll be back! You'll see! You'll see!!! I'll show ALL of you!!! Bates also said Newdow had no legal standing to pursue his claim. Even if Newdow could show he had suffered injury because he was offended in hearing the prayer, Bates said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony. But it offends ME! ME! Don't you understand? In a telephone interview from his home in Sacramento, Newdow said Bates had written a thoughtful opinion "but he came to the wrong conclusion." He said he planned to appeal. What does he know?! I'm right! Doesn't he realize that! This is ME we're talking about here! Everybody's heard of ME! Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs. This asshole's done the impossible and made me miss Madeline Murray O'Hare. Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God. The Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other parents and children. Newdow is both an emergency room physician and a lawyer and has represented himself in both legal actions. And we all know what they say about those who represent themselves in court... Posted by: tu3031 2005-01-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=53698 |