| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"FreeThink" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2005 09:51:01 AM |
| Object: |
Judge Dodges Prayer Issue Again |
Judge Bates admitts that he didn't want to go against Bush. The issue
is still not getting addressed because lawyers play legal games to
avoid the issue.
From AP wire:
An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of
Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at
President Bush's inauguration.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis
to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any
injury from hearing the prayer.
Bates also ruled that Newdow's claim should be denied because he
already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court
in California last year.
Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the January 20 ceremony
would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted
religious beliefs.
Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that
prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years
and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a
personal choice the court had no power to prevent.
During the two-hour hearing on Thursday, Bates questioned both sides
vigorously but expressed doubt that a court could order the president
not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.
"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in
and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.
Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow's legal
claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown
out because Newdow lost a similar case in California last year.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003
that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific
injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first
inauguration.
Newdow -- arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from
California -- said his case is different this time because he actually
has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is
more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the
ceremony on television.
Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying
the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not
shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.
George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the
details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action
but merely the personal choice of the president.
Newdow won widespread publicity two years ago when he persuaded the 9th
Circuit to rule that the separation of church and state was violated
when public school students pledged to God.
But the Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could
not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary
school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued.
Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month,
naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children
themselves.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
