SUPREME COURT DUCKS

SUPREME COURT DUCKS

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net	6/15/2004 8:24:33 AM
June 14, 2004 Americans United for Separation of Church and State www.au.org SUPREME COURT DUCKS CONTROVERSY OVER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Issue Sure To Resurface At High Court, Says Americans United Today's Supreme Court decision dismissing on technical grounds a legal challenge to the use of "under God" in public school recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is disappointing, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State. California physician Michael Newdow brought the suit on behalf of his daughter, a public school student. But Newdow has only partial custody of the girl, and the court today ruled he has does not have the right to sue on her behalf. "I am disappointed with the court's action," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country. America is increasingly diverse in matters of religion, and our public schools should reflect that diversity." Lynn said the Pledge case raised important issues that the court should have addressed head-on. He added that he believes the issue will resurface in the federal courts. "The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is certain to come back in the future," Lynn said. During oral arguments in March, Newdow, who was never married to his daughter's mother, was pressed by the justices on the issue of his right to sue on the girl's behalf. The lawyers for the Elk Grove Unified School District, which included the U.S. Solicitor General, noted that Newdow does not have primary custody of his daughter and that his daughter and her mother, both Christians, do not object to "under God" in the Pledge. "Students who are outside the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be pressured by their teachers to put aside their beliefs in order to show love of country," Lynn said. "The compelling issues raised by this case won't disappear because of today's action by the Supreme Court." Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge violates church-state separation. AU attorneys asserted that government, through the public school system, should not compel students to recite a patriotic oath with religious content. Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. www.au.org



junkmail@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira)	6/15/2004 1:16:16 PM
Said buckeye-ELO@nospam.net : June 14, 2004 Americans United for Separation of Church and State www.au.org SUPREME COURT DUCKS CONTROVERSY OVER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Shall we put it in perspective ? From today's New York Times (Tuesday, June 15, 2004): - One justice recused himself after having publicly criticized the Federal Court ruling. - Three justices said the pledge is constitutional. - The other five said that the Federal Court erred because the plaintiff lacked legal standing to bring it. - There's virtually no chance the case's going to come back before next election. - Justice Stevens said, "the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict". - He also said that California law didn not give that parent "a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion". - The child's mother, who under a California court's custody order, has the final say over their daughter's education, filed a brief with the Supreme Court expressing her desire that her daughter continues to recite the pledge with "under God" in it. - Justice Stevens said that the "unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government" should not reach out unnecessarily to decide cases - quoting form Robert Bork. - Justice Rehnquist said that "reciting the pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one". - Justice O'Connor equated the pledge to the "god save the United States and this honorable court" that the Supreme Court's Marshal intones at the start of each session. - Justice Thomas called for a re-examination of the precedents that lead the pledge to be seen as unconstitutional. So, the New York Times headline says, "Eight Justices Block Effort to Excise Phrase in Pledge". BLOCK, it says. Way more appropriate than "duck". Alberto.



GlennGlenn	6/15/2004 7:55:59 PM
Alberto Moreira wrote: Said buckeye-ELO@nospam.net : Shall we put it in perspective ? From today's New York Times (Tuesday, June 15, 2004): - One justice recused himself after having publicly criticized the Federal Court ruling. - Three justices said the pledge is constitutional. They are incorrect. - The other five said that the Federal Court erred because the plaintiff lacked legal standing to bring it. That was the technicality. - There's virtually no chance the case's going to come back before next election. Who cares exactly when it does? - Justice Stevens said, "the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict". Which is irrelevant to the question that the SC dodged. - He also said that California law didn not give that parent "a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion". Actually, that depends on who those "others" are, doesn't it? - The child's mother, who under a California court's custody order, has the final say over their daughter's education, filed a brief with the Supreme Court expressing her desire that her daughter continues to recite the pledge with "under God" in it. Irrelevant to the questioned dodged by the SC. - Justice Stevens said that the "unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government" should not reach out unnecessarily to decide cases Who decides when it is unnecessary? Moreira? - quoting form Robert Bork. Ah, Bork. - Justice Rehnquist said that "reciting the pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one". He's correct if "under God" doesn't mean under God. Many religious groups would certainly object if that were true. - Justice O'Connor equated the pledge to the "god save the United States and this honorable court" that the Supreme Court's Marshal intones at the start of each session. She can bring that up when the SC decides to actually face the issue. - Justice Thomas called for a re-examination of the precedents that lead the pledge to be seen as unconstitutional. You mean he actually said something? So, the New York Times headline says, "Eight Justices Block Effort to Excise Phrase in Pledge". Such is exactly what happened. BLOCK, it says. Way more appropriate than "duck". Yet "duck" is appropos. GlennGlenn



bogusfracture@aol.com (Bogus Fracture)	6/16/2004 5:32:49 AM
GlennGlenn <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message news:<jvIzc.72230$%57.30257@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>... Alberto Moreira wrote: They are incorrect. That was the technicality. Exactly. This particular case fizzled out on a technical detail of child custody rights. It proves nothing about the pledge itself. "Under God" is doomed just like commandments in courthouses. BF

Report this post for offensive content