posted on June 14, 2004 08:10:12 AM new
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
14 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.
The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) did not participate in the case.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the court.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) agreed with him.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
The case involved Newdow's grade school daughter, who like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God."
The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.
The child's mother, Sandra Banning, told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.
The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
posted on June 14, 2004 08:41:07 AM new
How so reamond? last I looked only the President can appoint a Supreme Court Justice... Kerry is not or will be in that position...
Yeah but you see only 3 but one Scalia will be in on the next hearing, if it ever comes about... that is 4... sway one more and it is a lock
posted on June 14, 2004 08:56:37 AM new
This calls for action from the ACLU!
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 14, 2004 09:06:28 AM new
Any info on the next triple crown that floats to the surface in that thar crystal ball of yourn, reamond, y'all be sure to share.
__________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 14, 2004 09:08:36 AM new
I doubt it will be heard again that soon, but Scalia only removed himself for this instance, do you really think that if it comes to another case he will remove himself again?
It will be fun to see... but with 3 confirmed and that still mean we would need only 1 more for a deadlock... so nothing would change...
posted on June 14, 2004 09:29:06 AM newI doubt it will be heard again that soon
So you think in the whole of that circuit, which includes California, there will not be one custodial parent that will bring the suit ? I think they will wait until after the election. They would already have the case won in the circuit. The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits, only that Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case. Get a Plaintiff with standing and the case is right back in front of the Supreme Court.
Scalia only removed himself for this instance
He removed himself because he gave a speech on the issue and stated his position. That prejudices him from ever ruling on the issue. I see no reason why he would not remove himself from a future case as the same conflicts would still be present.
And if the Supreme Court locks 4 to 4 without Scalia, the Circuit ruling stands, which means "under god" is out.
But the case will wait until the election is over.
posted on June 14, 2004 09:57:37 AM new
parklane64 - it has nothing to do with a crystal ball and everything to do with knowing how the our justice system works.
posted on June 14, 2004 10:56:50 AM new
I can't understand how that man became a costodial parent. Un married with child out of wedlock, raised by the mother who is christian, daughter brought up as a christian and was embarrased her "father" brought up the suit.
It has to be a good day for the daughter. In my opinion if that phrase had been taken out she would have been an outcast all the days remaining of her school years. Imagine being branded the daughter of the man who took Under God out of the Pledge of Allegance
I really don't care the profession of the father it has no bearing on this case. One question why didn't the parents get married?
I'm very pleased to see they ruled against Newdow. [clapping here - vigorously]
Using his young child for the advancement of his own atheist agenda - setting her up for ridicule in front of our nation - was shameful and potentially damaging to her well-being.
--------------
taken from MSNBC today -
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister.
An ordained minister???? He's a self-described atheist. So...I guess atheism IS now considered a religion?
"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.
Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
posted on June 14, 2004 11:49:16 AM newI'm very pleased to see they ruled against Newdow.
They only ruled against his standing to bring the case, the next person with standing to bring the case will win again in the Circuit, and we're back to square one.
The Court actually did Kerry a big favor by making it a non-issue in the election and making the religious right think they have won the case, when in fact the Supreme Court merely postponed ruling on the merits until after the election.
Someone with standing will bring the case. It is a slam dunk case in the Circuit and guaranteed to get USSC cert.
posted on June 14, 2004 12:06:56 PM new
What is the big deal, this guy isn't giving up either. Shoot, the 'God' has been on money for quite awhile, big deal, use a check or credit/debit card!
Supreme Court sidesteps pledge issue, ruling father has no right to sue
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 14, 2004
The U.S. Supreme Court brought two years of pleadings and passion over the Pledge of Allegiance to a crashing anticlimax Monday when it ruled that a Sacramento atheist, who challenged the phrase "under God" in daily recitals in his daughter’s classroom, had no right to sue on her behalf.
The court left the current version of the pledge intact but spurned pleas from opposing sides in the case to decide whether the language violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling came on Flag Day and the 50th anniversary of congressional passage of the law that added "under God" to the pledge. It also came nearly two years after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a stunning decision that the pledge, those two words included, was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
The high court overturned that ruling but sidestepped the constitutional issue by finding that Michael Newdow lacked legal standing to raise the issue because of his limited custody of his daughter, now in the fifth grade.
Under a Superior Court order, Newdow and his former partner, Sandra Banning, the child’s mother, share legal custody, but Banning makes final decisions about her education. Banning is a Christian who says neither she nor her daughter objects to the pledge.
Newdow "wishes to forestall his daughter’s exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses," said Justice John Paul Stevens. "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
The vote was 5-3. Dissenters, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said the court should have found that Newdow had legal standing to sue, but should have rejected his constitutional argument and upheld “under God’’ as a “public recognition of our nation’s religious history and character."
Newdow, a physician and lawyer who represented himself in the case, said he isn't giving up on the issue and might file a new suit on behalf of other parents who object to the pledge.
He disputed the court's conclusion that he lacked standing because he had no legal interests at stake in the case.When his daughter’s class is led in an observance of loyalty to a nation under God, Newdow said, "My daughter's told that I'm wrong (in my beliefs) every day in the public schools."
OK is he saying there, that his own daughter, that he is 'fighting' agaist the Under God part, doesn't think he is right in trying to get rid of it??? But now he'll continue 'on behalf of other parents who object to the pledge'??
posted on June 14, 2004 12:07:26 PM new
It's interesting that the folks who support leaving 'god' in the pledge are overlooking the actual action of the court and are happy to make it look like their position was supported. In reality, the Supreme Court has decided nothing.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 14, 2004 12:19:20 PM newIt's a defeat for HIM....and I'm thrilled to see it.
But in reality it is far from a defeat for him. All the USSC said is that because he does not have legal custody of the child he can not bring the suit.
All that needs to happen is a custodial parent to bring the suit and Newdow wins "again".
The Circuit court is just waiting for another parent to bring the case.
But in the mean time, I am tickled that Jay Sekulow and others are proclaiming victroy.
It is great news for Kerry. The USSC handed him a big favor ruling the way they did.
posted on June 14, 2004 12:31:06 PM new
Oh yes.... Happy Flag Day!!!
------------------
"My daughter's told that I'm wrong (in my beliefs) every day in the public schools."
He's not alone and he'd better get used to it being that way on many issues/subjects. It's only the beginning of what's to come down the road. I can't remember how many times our sons came home with something their teachers had told them....school mates had told them that went against what we believed as parents to be right. It's a fact of life....there are many different views expressed. Parents must re-inforce their own beliefs to their own children and hope they 'take hold'.
But I pity this poor child...can't imagine what a terrible position she's put into with both her parents on different sides of these religious issues - this particular issue. She'll hear both opinions and make her own choice....hopefully without the need for psychoanalysis. But it's going to be tough for her.
posted on June 14, 2004 12:35:29 PM new
Not imo, reamond. It would have been a 'win' for him had they made a ruling on the issue that he had the right to use his daughter for his agenda. They didn't. They said he had NO standing. To most that's considered a LOSS.
posted on June 14, 2004 12:49:31 PM new
reamond - A win for kerry?????
Has he stated he wants God removed from our Pledge? Has he stated he wants all mention of God removed from everything in our nation? I sure haven't read him taking that position.
Or are you saying because he doesn't NOW have to take a hard stand on *exactly* what his position really is on this subject? And you see that as a win somehow?
kerry's not an atheist. He's a practicing Catholic. I'd LOVE to see him state he wants all mention of God removed from everything it's now in or on.
posted on June 14, 2004 01:31:34 PM newreamond - A win for kerry?????
It certainly is a win for Kerry. It has nothing to do with Kerry's position on the matter.
If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Newdow it would energize and bring out the vote from the right wing religious wackos that right now will not vote for Bush. Remember Bush celebrated Ramadan at the WHite House with Muslims and was pictured with one Muslim that has since been arrested for supporting terrorists. He has also so far refused to make the war on terrorism associated in any way with Islam.
The far right has also abandoned Bush over budget deficits and the mess in Iraq. If the USSC ruled in Newdow's favor, it would bring these voters back into the election.
posted on June 14, 2004 01:42:44 PM new
After the phase "under God" is removed, someone will want the entire pledge removed as it "worships" a flag, (idol worship?).
This stuff NEVER ends!
The dollar bill will have a "blank" where God used to be so you can fill in whatever....Allah, Brad Pitt, He-Man Master of the Universe, Twelvepole.....
You have to make the MAJORITY of people happy. You cannot make EVERYONE happy. There will always be someone barking about something!
posted on June 14, 2004 02:52:59 PM new
I may be wrong here, but isn't God universal? All the religions I know of worship "a" God in one form or another even Wicca. It may not be the same God, but it is a God. I also understand that you don't have to say the pledge if you don't want to. You could say the pledge but leave out the "under God" part. This is an issue where it will be impossible to please everyone. In the interest of preserving the rights of one group, you invariably take rights away from another.
I think it needs to be stressed that I didn't say the pledge when I was in school because my particular religion forbad it. I was raised a Jehova's Witness and until I entered high school and my parents turned me loose to find my own religion, I practiced that religion. I was never ridiculed for not saying it. Of course, that was only because my parents informed the school what my religious practice was.
My feeling is that the phrase should stay and those that want to say it, should and those who don't want to say it, shouldn't.
posted on June 14, 2004 03:40:42 PM new
Thanks, NTS, I'm really more of a Tom Selleck girl myself!....lol
Cheryl- I agree with you. Deep down, I think we are ALL right. All have a pretty similar "creation", want you to "live right" and then go to a better place after you leave your mortal self. Just different names for things.
posted on June 14, 2004 05:43:47 PM new
Under California law the children must attend school and they must say the pledge including the phrase "under god".
But giving the children a "choice" in the matter does not cure the situation of government endorsing religion.
This is not about who believes in god and who doesn't, nor is it about whether one person's complaint should effect all the others. It is about the government endorsing religion.
posted on June 14, 2004 05:48:33 PM new
There is a disturbing issue with this Supreme Court ruling that the religious right has been silent about thus far.
The court ruled that a non-custodial father has no standing at law to sue and does not recognize the parent child relationship.
Unless this standing issue can be isolated, it will have some pretty large effects on family law.
You make a good point there (concerning the family law thing). I'm sure it won't be long until someone catches onto that one. There could be an interesting battle ahead.
