posted on November 1, 2003 07:46:15 AM new
his own oral arguments in this case? It will be interesting to me IF he is allowed to give his own arguments AND he decides to object to the court tradition of beginning its daily session with "God save the United States and this honorable court." How do you think the USSC Justices will react to that?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court will decide soon if the California atheist who wants the words "under God" stripped from the Pledge of Allegiance can serve as his own lawyer when the court hears his case next year.
Dr. Michael Newdow is an attorney, and he has been writing and filing his own legal arguments so far. But he hasn't had his law license long enough to qualify for the Supreme Court Bar. Only members of that bar can stand before the justices during oral arguments, unless the court grants a waiver.
"It is a tribute to our system of law that any individual with sufficient desire can, by himself, ensure that our government remains true to its constitutional ideals," Newdow wrote to the court this week.
David Frederick, a Washington lawyer specializing in the Supreme Court, said Newdow's request for "pro se" status is unusual and the court may turn it down. Justices would not have to give any reason, and their decision would be final.
The court has allowed a few self-representations over the years. Newdow points out four in the past quarter-century.
"I suspect they would like to have a more dispassionate presentation," said Stephen Shapiro of Chicago, another Supreme Court expert. "But if the person is a lawyer and it's their own case, it may be difficult to say no."
Newdow says he's done a good job so far on his own, winning an appeals court decision that the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the reference to God.
Earlier this year, Newdow said in an interview that he wanted to argue the Supreme Court case himself and would object to the court tradition of beginning its daily session with "God save the United States and this honorable court."
posted on November 1, 2003 08:34:00 AM new
Some traditions never die. By objecting to the opening statement of the Supreme Court, he very likely to incur the wrath of the judges.
As their ruling on the matter, I feel it is likely they will over turn the ruling of the 9th distrct court. Especially since more of the 9th's courts are over rulled that are allowed to stand.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 1, 2003 11:32:24 AM new
Newdow's case is sound. The main problem with representing himself at the oral arguments is that he could be offering impromptu evidence as the justices ask him questions.
In any event, a government representitive leading school children in a pledge that acknowledges a god is clearly unconstitutional, just as teacher lead prayer is.
posted on November 1, 2003 01:38:48 PM new
We'll see, won't we? I'll be surprised if they let him present his own arguments. And he will insult them and their court if he objects to that tradition or to the wall behind them.
posted on November 2, 2003 09:16:15 AM new
How do you know it will insult the justices ? There may very well be a firm majority awaiting someone smart and daring enough to bring the situation of the USSC's own operations before the court. After all, no justice can raise these issues sua sponte.
posted on November 2, 2003 09:35:31 AM new
I'm betting they will let him present his own case.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 3, 2003 02:16:05 AM new
reamond - How do you know it will....
Of course, I don't know it will. It's an educated guess from watching how the court expects respect from those who appear before it.
If you came into my home or office and made a negative comment about a plack I [may] have hanging on a wall, that said "God, grant me patience.....to accept what all these far-left democrats are saying" and made some remark about how inappropriate it was, I would be insulted. It wouldn't be there if I was offended by it. [Understanding here there is a difference between my home/office and a government building - But a government building where these symbols have been since 1935 when the building was first built].
The justices have worked in this building with all these traditional references to a God around them since they took the bench and IF they had objections they would have mentioned them to someone and change would have been made.
Like when the 9th circuit upheld Newdow's position, the uproar came from the people and many members of our Congress to not allow this decision to stand. That's why it's in front of the USSC now. Many objected to it being removed.
no justice can raise these issues sua sponte
Good point. But I'm still willing to place my bet it doesn't bother the majority of them, or these symbols would have already been taken down. Our Congress opens with prayers each day too. There were some who objected to only Christian prayer and so a compromise was worked out. Now all different demoninations have 'their' prayers represented before opening.
But I, and many Americans, believe that since no one is forced to say the pledge, etc. to not allow the words to be said is taking away our freedom of speech and freedom to practice our religion when there are no such limits of doing so in our Constitution.
I know it's going to be a close call, especially with one justice excusing himself. BUT I am hoping for some sort of decision that semi makes everyone happy. Just like the compromise that was reached in our Congress and in the USSC decision in Michigan University's affirmative action decision, where both sides felt like they had won.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 3, 2003 02:47 AM ]
How do you think the USSC Justices will react to that?
