Does Newdow own a horse? Maybe Don Corleone could pay him a visit.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Federal Judge Pulls Plug On Pledge |
| 2005-11-07 |
| CBS/AP) A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments. The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports that last year, the Supreme Court ducked a direct ruling because it said Newdow lacked custody of his daughter, he lacked the standing to sue. Newdow, an attorney, simply found two parents who do have custody and now he's back in business. Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue. "Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,"' Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling. "I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't." Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend. The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states. The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux. No surprise here. Karlton, was appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter. Judicial appointments DO matter. I'm with Red on this one. http://patriotfilesannex.org/Pledge.htm |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #16 "I plead alignment to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow and to the Republicans for which they scam, one nacho underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls" |
| Posted by: Bart Simpson 2005-11-07 23:44 |
| #15 Say it with me loud and clear, people: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that CONGRESS shall make no law establishing religion.... Unless Congress passed a law requiring the Pledge be said in schools, IT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Send these clown judges back to school and teach them how to READ ENGLISH. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-11-07 23:28 |
| #14 The 9th Jerkoffit Court Rendition |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-11-07 21:12 |
| #13 Actually this wasn't the 9th Circus it was just a lower District Court judge here in NoCal. Doubtless the 9th Circus will soon affirm the decision though. A more interesting slant (to me anyway) to which no one pays any attention: Newdow and his ilk sued several school districts and the educational establishment isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism, particularly here in California. Having lefty school districts defending the Pledge is a bit like letting the fox guard the henhouse, no? |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-11-07 19:23 |
| #12 About time to move the offices of the 9th Circuit to the Aleutians. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-11-07 18:53 |
| #11 The 9th Jerk |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-11-07 18:13 |
| #10 Are all atheists furious over the "under god" reference... Not this one. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-11-07 17:15 |
| #9 Does Newdow own a horse? Maybe Don Corleone could pay him a visit. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-07 16:53 |
| #8 The 9th Circuit is the poster child for the Congress abrogating its responsilities under said Constitution. Checks and Balances means that Congress need not pass new legislation or amendments. It means that sometime you remove the judges from the bench. The number of overturns of the 9th Circuit should have been justification alone for the removal of a couple of robe wearers. Some members of the Judiciary certainly believe they’re entitled to abuse their office, so its well long past time that they be shown the door to some professorship at the law colleges and not further federal employment. |
| Posted by: Whash Unick6318 2005-11-07 16:39 |
| #7 You be the judge: Is the 9th Circuit eligible for prime time Bosnian grenade tossing? Yes ______ No _______ |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-07 15:17 |
| #6 They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. Are all atheists furious over the "under god" reference or is it just small vocal group of a minority of the population? I'm inclined to say just remove the quote and move on but there appears to be an agenda here that goes beyond what is on the surface. As far as I can tell there hasn't been any persecution of atheists. Last time I checked the consititution doesn't grant "Freedom from religion". |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-07 15:12 |
| #5 Funny, I don't remember being coerced to say the pledge, I remember inventing my own words, or saying blah, blah, blah from time to time and somehow avoided any repurcusions at all. This has nothing to do with establishing a religion and everything to do with an athiests crusade. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz (no T!) 2005-11-07 14:56 |
| #4 No doubt these asshats would find the consitution itself unconsitutional..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-11-07 14:41 |
| #3 Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional? What the hell will those dickwads come up with next? I guess the statue of liberty is unconstitutional too. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-11-07 14:37 |
| #2 Ninth Circus again. It all starts with that Newdow jerk. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-11-07 14:32 |
| #1 Ninth Circus again. But those bozos are getting reduced to Calif. and Hawaii. Next time around just Berkley. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-11-07 13:58 |