Newdow
January 29, 2004 | 9 Comments
Do you think that the Supreme Court will strike down the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional?
Yes.
January 29, 2004 | 9 Comments
Do you think that the Supreme Court will strike down the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional?
Yes.
January 29th, 2004 @ 11:45 am
No. They will find that Newdow lacked standing to bring the case and will dismiss it.
January 29th, 2004 @ 11:47 am
SHOULD they? YES! They should strike out the “under god” propaganda added in the 50s.
January 29th, 2004 @ 12:05 pm
More people in the United States are more educated today and so the Supreme Court will have to rule the words “under god” as unconstitutional, other wise it will become obvious to all that the Constitution of the United States will have been written in vain and that the Catholic Church has finally recaptured all those immigrants who came to America to escape the oppressive rule of the Vatican for the last 200 years.
January 29th, 2004 @ 6:19 pm
They should. They won’t.
January 29th, 2004 @ 7:47 pm
They might. The trouble is, the more liberal justices are likely to support keeping the old pledge due to, as today’s post says, ‘Religious tolerance,” while the conservative justices will have no such trouble making up their minds.
I’m not sure I care anyway. Saying the pledge the way it is for six years never hurt me. Not only do I not believe in god, I don’t unconditionally support the country.
January 29th, 2004 @ 11:31 pm
Yes. It clearly violates the establishment law. It invalidates an Atheist belief. It rules out other religious beliefs by establishing a preference for a Christian god over a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever god(s). While the various religions and their supporters are decidedly more organized than the Atheists and overwhelmingly more financially and politically able to market their position, the court cannot bow to majority opinion; they must do what is right: back the circut court and strike it down. And then I woke up!
January 30th, 2004 @ 6:24 am
bush and his extreme right friends have been attacking “activist” judges way too much in recent times, maybe as a warning before this case is heard by the supremes in march…also, we have been hearing a lot of this same comments by regular people, warned, of course, by this stupid president of yours…
if the supremes are brave and wish to honor and uphold the constitution, they will sustain Newdow….i’m betting (irrationally and by faith) on that…
and willing to lose…
this is a worthy fight…
January 30th, 2004 @ 6:44 pm
The Court should do so, of course, but I would be shocked. Since Scalia has recused himself, I think the best we can realistically hope for is a 4-4 split (with Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter voting anti-”under God”), which would result in a non-precededential affirmance without opinion of the Ninth Circuit’s decision (which would not bind any courts outside of the Ninth Circuit). But I doubt even that will happen.
January 30th, 2004 @ 6:46 pm
Finding lack of standing, as GeneralZod suggests, would be a way for the Court to kill off the Ninth Circuit decision and duck the issue if the justices are so inclined.