Steve Canyon wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:09:08 GMT, Arne Langsetmo
<zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"Mr. Magnetic Capacitor" Steve "Deuce" Canyon wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:26:23 GMT, Arne Langsetmo
<zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"Mr. Magnetic Capacitor" Steve "Deuce" Canyon wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:59:55 -0600, SemiScholar
<noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:42:08 GMT, Arne Langsetmo
<zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"ButtMaster" Dana wrote:

. . . The U.S. Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments in atheist
Michael Newdow's case alleging that his daughter's First Amendment rights
were violated when she was required to say "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance at her California school. The high court will soon decide whether
it is appropriate for school children to acknowledge God while pledging to
the flag.

Should the court de-Word the pledge, so to speak, it would become
meaningless. . . .

But you RW foamers have been screaming that the very reason it
_is_ permissible is that it's only "ceremonial deism", devoid
of meaning (and thus, also, a pretty stoopid venture to begin
with).

And, since the pledge didn't contain the words in question until the
mid-50's, he's claiming that the pledge was "meaningless" back during,
say, WWII and the Korean War.

Sheesh!

Too bad, but it looks like you're going to lose another one.

On what basis do you make this prediction, "Deuce"?

What I hear the members of the Supreme Court saying . . .

And what was that?

Looks like your ability to follow the news is as bas as your skiing.
You should try some news sources other then the WSWS...

I've been reading about it. I just asked _you_ what comments
_you_ thought supported your claim.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "there are so many references to
God in the daily lives of this country" that the words in the pledge
have no more religious meaning than the words on the coin.
Maybe too, as Justice Stephen Breyer pondered, the God in the pledge
is so "generic" that it includes everyone, and so vague that it
bothers no one. But Newdow was right in saying that a pledge to one
nation under even the most generic God doesn't include people who
believe in "no God." And maybe, as Justice David Souter added, it's
"so tepid, so diluted . . . that it should be under the
constitutional radar." But if the phrase is so tepid, why all the
passion?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/8302775.htm

Hate to say it, but that's someone else saying what O'Connor, Breyer,
and Souter said. Those are incomplete quotes, and in fact one such
'quote' is a mere word.

Souter never said: "it's 'so tepid, so diluted . . . that it should
be under the constitutional radar.'" (outer quotes the MercNews's,
inner quotes, Souter's). Here's what he actually said:

[Justice Souter]:
What do you make of the argument that in actual practice the
affirmation in the midst of this civic exercise as a religious
affirmation is so tepid, so diluted then so far, let's say,
from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect,
beneath the constitutional radar. It's sometimes, you know
the phrase, the Rostow phrase, the ceremonial deism.

(from the N.Y. Times transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/national/25STEX.html)

Not quite the same, is it?

Once again, letting others do your thinking for you?

"You may disagree that it's 'under God.' You may disagree that it's
`liberty and justice for all,'" Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
said, referring to another part of the pledge. "That doesn't make it
a prayer."

None of the justices indicated clear support for Newdow's position.

The point of oral argument is to question the parties, and to ask
them to defend their position against the countervailing arguments.
You may sometimes glean a judge's leanings from the question, but
it is not wise to take any justice's _question_ as being the
ultimate opinion of that justice.

Justice David H. Souter suggested the phrase "under God" was benign
enough that it might fly "beneath the constitutional radar."

Nah. He asked Newdow what he made of that argument. Perfectly
reasonable question to ask.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the phrase was "sandwiched in the
middle of something" . . .

And? . . . .

. . . and said Newdow's daughter had the right to
refuse to recite the pledge.

The latter is an unremarkable observation given West Virginia v.
Barnette. The real question here is whether (as is actual fact)
the recitation of the Pledge, even if not mandatory, is
Constitutional.

Here's the end of that exchange (from the N.Y. Times transcript):

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The child doesn't have to if it doesn't
want to. That's not an issue in this case.

(as I said... But Newdow never made that claim)

MR. NEWDOW: The issue is whether or not government can put
that idea in her mind and interfere with my right. I have
a absolute right to raise my child as whatever I see.
Government is weighing in on this issue.

GINSBUSRG: No, you don't, you don't. You -- there is
another custodian of this child who makes the final
decision who doesn't agree with you.

So the issue of standing (or at least custody) is brought up.
But if this is Ginsburg's sole objection here, she's not
saying the government is right in what it's doing; she's
saying he doesn't have the right to complain.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor pointed to the invocation that begins
every session of the Supreme Court: "God save the United States and
this honorable court."

"We have so many references to God in our daily lives in this
country," O'Connor said.

Part of oral argument. As I said, they use oral argument to
probe the strength of the position of the parties, and often
bring up the countervailing arguments to see what the response
is. The questions may give hints as to their thinking, show what
issues do seem to be important (or at least unresolved) for
them, and even strong hints as to their position, but it's
hardly dispositive of their views. Yes, O'Connor may well
be receptive to the argument of "ceremonial deism", judging
from this, but I'm not sure she's convinced. Rehnquist seems
to be pretty firm on the "bright-line" distinction "It's not
a prayer, it's a pledge", but I don't think he was going to
go for Newdow in any case. It's sad to say that the "ceremonial
deism" argument seems to be the strongest argument for the
Pledge, despite the clear history (both present-day and
half a century ago) that the words are not "so tepid, so diluted"
as to be de minimus.

Several justices, including Anthony Kennedy, questioned whether
Newdow had a right to press his case, suggesting they may rule against
him without reaching the church-state issue. The two sides have
sparred over whether Newdow is a custodial parent with the right to
make decisions on his daughter's schooling.

Newdow may well lose on the standing issue, but that's a dodge.
If they have questions on standing, they ought to certify it to
the ultimate authority on the underlying facts and law, the
California Supreme Court.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a_zEURhXHuc8&refer=us

I don't give a damn about your opinions,
nor your life story, "Deuce", I was asking for your evidence
and/or your reasoning.

<LOL> It doesn't look good for Newdow.

If you snip and paste some one else's thinking, I suppose.

. . . plus speculation
by several news sources.

OIC. People tell you what to think. That might explain a lot.
I suggest you flip the channels; too much static on the one
you're on, "Mr. Magnetic Capacitor". . . .

I was just reporting on what the Supreme Court is likely to do...

["Deuce"]:

Too bad, but it looks like you're going to lose another one.

Not. "Too bad, but various people are saying..."

That's your opinion. And obviously not a well-thought-out one.

What _should_ the law be? Which argument did you find most
persuasive?

I didn't pay much attention to any arguments. . . .

That goes without saying, "Deuce". You never do. . . .

. . . The whole thing is no
more than entertainment for me.

OIC. So you're just inanely spouting off here and you're just
full'o'shite, eh, "Deuce". Hmmmm, that reminds me of someone.
Lemme think for a minnit. Oh, yeah, that clueless berk "Steve
Canyon". . . .

<LOL> It doesn't look good for your side. Arne.

Strangely enough, most legal experts say that Newdow's
argument on the merits is quite good, even if many
say that it's likely that Newdow will lose. That _should_
be raising eyebrows everywhere, but seeing as the execrable
piece of illogic and hypocrisy in the Dubya v. Gore per
curiam opinion didn't get very many people up in arms, I'm
not surprised.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo