Religions > Atheism > Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Paul Epstein" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2003 11:53:41 AM |
| Object: |
Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
Could anybody possibly tell me of any Supreme court plans to debate
the previous federal ruling that the pledge of allegiance is
unconstitutional in California schools? (I apologize if this is
technically inaccurate [perhaps the reference should be to all US
schools or to a more local area] -- I'm referring to Newdow's victory
that created a great stir a year or so ago.)
In particular, when is the Supreme court likely to arrive at its
decision? This would seem an easy thing to research over the web, but
I have come up empty-handed. Is it the case that there are no real
plans for the US Supreme Court to debate this, at all? That would
explain why my google searches are not arriving at an actual date for
debate and deliberation, just endless speculation by media pundits
about what the Supreme Court "might" do.
Paul Epstein
.
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
24 Aug 2003 12:14:27 PM |
|
|
Could anybody possibly tell me of any Supreme court plans to debate
the previous federal ruling that the pledge of allegiance is
unconstitutional in California schools? (I apologize if this is
technically inaccurate [perhaps the reference should be to all US
schools or to a more local area] -- I'm referring to Newdow's victory
that created a great stir a year or so ago.)
Your reference is innacurate in another way as well. The 9th CCA's decision in
Newdow v. US Congress did not make the Pledge unconstitutional...it made the
1954 version unconstitutional when promoted to a captive audience by a
governmental body. The three pre-McCarthyite versions, including the original
1892 Bellamy version are still perfectly acceptable. Newdow's intent was to get
the pledge restored to the original version before the anti-American Christian
supremacists got a hold of it in the 1950s.
In particular, when is the Supreme court likely to arrive at its
decision? This would seem an easy thing to research over the web, but
I have come up empty-handed. Is it the case that there are no real
plans for the US Supreme Court to debate this, at all? That would
explain why my google searches are not arriving at an actual date for
debate and deliberation, just endless speculation by media pundits
about what the Supreme Court "might" do.
The latest decision that I am aware of is that in February the Bush
administration requested the 9th to reconsider their decision and were
rebuffed. According to www.restorethepledge.com the Supreme Court is expected
to make a decision on whether or not they will hear the case in October.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." - the original version
of the Pledge of Allegiance by Rev. Francis Bellamy, September 1892
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
24 Aug 2003 12:55:42 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2003 09:53:41 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
wrote:
Could anybody possibly tell me of any Supreme court plans to debate
the previous federal ruling that the pledge of allegiance is
unconstitutional in California schools? (I apologize if this is
technically inaccurate [perhaps the reference should be to all US
schools or to a more local area] -- I'm referring to Newdow's victory
that created a great stir a year or so ago.)
It's not the pledge per se, although that has been covered in previous
rulings and is not allowed to be mandatory in spite of what certain
other states have ruled. The SCOTUS rulings that it cannot be
mandatory still stand.
The recent 9th district ruling was that the words "under God" were
unconstitutional. The reasoning and argument are impeccable: they are
in direct contravention of the establishment clause of the First
Amendment.
Before the 2000 election I would have assumed that even a biased SC
would at least observe the law. But given their show of partisanship
over precedent I'm not so sure any more.
In particular, when is the Supreme court likely to arrive at its
decision? This would seem an easy thing to research over the web, but
I have come up empty-handed. Is it the case that there are no real
plans for the US Supreme Court to debate this, at all? That would
explain why my google searches are not arriving at an actual date for
debate and deliberation, just endless speculation by media pundits
about what the Supreme Court "might" do.
There is no other ruling they can be honest and make. The 9th
district's reasoning was impeccable.
I suspect that in the present climate where the majority of both
houses, the President, the Attorney General and various state
governors have all spoken out against the ruling, they don't wan't to
be seen to let it stand.
Paul Epstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
24 Aug 2003 01:17:50 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2003 09:53:41 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
wrote:
Could anybody possibly tell me of any Supreme court plans to debate
the previous federal ruling that the pledge of allegiance is
unconstitutional in California schools? (I apologize if this is
technically inaccurate [perhaps the reference should be to all US
schools or to a more local area] -- I'm referring to Newdow's victory
that created a great stir a year or so ago.)
You might be able to keep up with them here:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage
atheist@home#1554
In particular, when is the Supreme court likely to arrive at its
decision? This would seem an easy thing to research over the web, but
I have come up empty-handed. Is it the case that there are no real
plans for the US Supreme Court to debate this, at all? That would
explain why my google searches are not arriving at an actual date for
debate and deliberation, just endless speculation by media pundits
about what the Supreme Court "might" do.
Paul Epstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 01:12:57 PM |
|
|
Regarding my earlier inaccuracy (for which I apologise), I did know
the basic background about the history of the pledge. My intention
was really to ask "You all know about the legal proceedings regarding
the pledge -- when is the Supreme Court going to deliberate?" I
didn't feel a need to rehash the history, and thereby ensure 100%
accuracy -- I just wanted to ask a question.
Thank you for those who tried to help me. However, I couldn't get any
enlightenment on this question from oyez.org Thanks to the poster who
pointed out that restorepledge.com suggests a Supreme Court debate in
October. However, this website gives no reference (or other evidence)
for this suggested date.
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it. The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
Flaming such people really doesn't help. There are reasons for
people's beliefs and reasons for people's actions whether they're on
the SC, or whether they're relatively powerless. In my opinion, we
should try and understand these beliefs and actions, and flaming them
as bigots/morons etc (I confidently predict such flames after the SC
show their fundamentalist Christian leanings) merely obstructs the
necessary work of understanding those who are different to ourselves.
Paul Epstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 01:33:16 PM |
|
|
(Paul Epstein) writes:
....
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it. The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
I think Newdow will actually win; the 9th circuit court decision
cited earlier decisions by O'Connor and Kennedy to support its
conclusion, and assuming the only sure votes to overturn are
renquist/scalia/thomas, I think 5-4 upholding is what will
happen, with a chance for 6-3.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 03:24:19 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote in message news:<3f4a566c$0$150$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>...
pauldepstein@att.net (Paul Epstein) writes:
...
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it. The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
I think Newdow will actually win; the 9th circuit court decision
cited earlier decisions by O'Connor and Kennedy to support its
conclusion, and assuming the only sure votes to overturn are
renquist/scalia/thomas, I think 5-4 upholding is what will
happen, with a chance for 6-3.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
I'd be grateful if Merlyn could expand on his argument because, as
given, it doesn't seem quite cogent.
By analogy, consider the Supreme Court votes on Florida. Some of the
five who voted with the majority are passionate advocates of "states'
rights". So, it would be very easy to cite some of the judicial
philosophy of Scalia and Thomas in support of the minority in the
Florida recount decision. Similarly, even if the 9th circuit court
decision used decisions by O'Connor and Kennedy in its support, it
doesn't follow that O'Connor and Kennedy would agree to this
application of their own arguments, and support Newdow. Private
comments by O'Connor indicate that she's a strong Bush supporter.
It's difficult for me to imagine a Bush supporter siding with Newdow.
Paul Epstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 03:43:34 PM |
|
|
Private
comments by O'Connor indicate that she's a strong Bush supporter.
It's difficult for me to imagine a Bush supporter siding with Newdow.
We thought that about Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (originally Reno v.
Free Speech Coalition) and several members of the Court suprised a lot of
people. Justice Thomas, of all people, sided with the majority on this one and
wrote the concurring opinion with Justice Kennedy.
The basis of this case was an attempt to make individuals subject to child
pornography laws for producing visualizations of persons who appeared underage
(including artwork) even if there was never a child involved anywhere in the
production process. A 50-year old woman in pigtails photographed lewdly could
have been considered "child pornography" under the statute. The Supremes,
wisely, told Ashcroft to bugger off. This case, like Newdow, came from the 9th
Circuit Court.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 09:19:00 PM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2003 13:24:19 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
posted in alt.atheism:
I'd be grateful if Merlyn could expand on his argument because, as
given, it doesn't seem quite cogent.
By analogy, consider the Supreme Court votes on Florida.
The SC votes on Florida had nothing to do with precedent, law or any
of the things you'd expect a court decision to be based on. Some day
the whole story will come out.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
26 Aug 2003 10:39:42 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<02glkvkt100iduug4srrooan05u3gg8rn7@Pern.rk>...
On 25 Aug 2003 13:24:19 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
posted in alt.atheism:
I'd be grateful if Merlyn could expand on his argument because, as
given, it doesn't seem quite cogent.
By analogy, consider the Supreme Court votes on Florida.
The SC votes on Florida had nothing to do with precedent, law or any
of the things you'd expect a court decision to be based on. Some day
the whole story will come out.
Exactly, so why is there a view among many posters that the SC votes
on the pledge will be based on precedent, law etc.?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
26 Aug 2003 11:06:52 AM |
|
|
(Paul Epstein) writes:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<02glkvkt100iduug4srrooan05u3gg8rn7@Pern.rk>...
On 25 Aug 2003 13:24:19 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
posted in alt.atheism:
I'd be grateful if Merlyn could expand on his argument because, as
given, it doesn't seem quite cogent.
By analogy, consider the Supreme Court votes on Florida.
The SC votes on Florida had nothing to do with precedent, law or any
of the things you'd expect a court decision to be based on. Some day
the whole story will come out.
Exactly, so why is there a view among many posters that the SC votes
on the pledge will be based on precedent, law etc.?
Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Ind. School Dist. v. Doe were both
recent 6-3 decisions involving schools and religious references.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
26 Aug 2003 10:33:08 PM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2003 08:39:42 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<02glkvkt100iduug4srrooan05u3gg8rn7@Pern.rk>...
On 25 Aug 2003 13:24:19 -0700, (Paul Epstein)
posted in alt.atheism:
I'd be grateful if Merlyn could expand on his argument because, as
given, it doesn't seem quite cogent.
By analogy, consider the Supreme Court votes on Florida.
The SC votes on Florida had nothing to do with precedent, law or any
of the things you'd expect a court decision to be based on. Some day
the whole story will come out.
Exactly, so why is there a view among many posters that the SC votes
on the pledge will be based on precedent, law etc.?
Because most SC votes are. The ones that aren't decided on commercial
expedience, anyway, and there's nothing commercial about the pledge.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 04:38:44 PM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2003 18:33:16 GMT, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
pauldepstein@att.net (Paul Epstein) writes:
...
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it. The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
I think Newdow will actually win; the 9th circuit court decision
cited earlier decisions by O'Connor and Kennedy to support its
conclusion, and assuming the only sure votes to overturn are
renquist/scalia/thomas, I think 5-4 upholding is what will
happen, with a chance for 6-3.
Given the way they ignored precedent after the 2000 election and came
up with one-off excuses for their decision, don't be so sure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 02:56:49 PM |
|
|
Once in a while, someone like Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> on 25
Aug 2003 18:33:16 GMT, will write something good, but this is not
it...
pauldepstein@att.net (Paul Epstein) writes:
...
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it. The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
I think Newdow will actually win; the 9th circuit court decision
cited earlier decisions by O'Connor and Kennedy to support its
conclusion, and assuming the only sure votes to overturn are
renquist/scalia/thomas, I think 5-4 upholding is what will
happen, with a chance for 6-3.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Probably not. It will fail. 7-2. Never underestimate the power of
illogical reasoning driven by religion.
It seems odd that those who scoff at sun worshippers are apt to
worship a vacuum.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Date supreme court is likely to decide whether pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional |
25 Aug 2003 02:44:29 PM |
|
|
I'm sure that the Supreme Court will overturn Newdow's victory if they
debate it.
Only if they ignore the law.
The majority are deeply religious Christians, and I'm sure
they believe that they have a higher duty to God than to the law.
It will be interesting to see if Scalia actually recuses himself as he is
required to do by law for stating his opinion on the case before it even was
brought before them.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
