Tweet
The latest installment in my long standing tradition of cut-and-paste crap posting. Take that, loinburger!
Good on the Supreme Court. It's about time they shut that annoying heathen up.
Court dismisses Pledge case
Atheist father cannot sue over use of 'Under God'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California atheist could not challenge the words "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full pledge will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.
Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
He added, "Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."
Led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, three other justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.
At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.
Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees and argued his own case before the high-court justices in March, never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.
The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full pledge and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.
In his minority opinion, Rehnquist wrote, "To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance."
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the pledge serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.
Newdow sued the Sacramento County, California, school district his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it.
He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval. (March arguments before case)
Newdow declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."
The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."
In June 2002, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led pledge for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under its jurisdiction. In striking down the pledge, the judges ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren." (The 2002 ruling)
But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling.
The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.
In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (02-1624).
Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Atheist father cannot sue over use of 'Under God'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California atheist could not challenge the words "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full pledge will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.
Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
He added, "Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."
Led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, three other justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.
At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.
Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees and argued his own case before the high-court justices in March, never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.
The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full pledge and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.
In his minority opinion, Rehnquist wrote, "To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance."
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the pledge serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.
Newdow sued the Sacramento County, California, school district his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it.
He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval. (March arguments before case)
Newdow declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."
The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."
In June 2002, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led pledge for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under its jurisdiction. In striking down the pledge, the judges ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren." (The 2002 ruling)
But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling.
The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.
In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (02-1624).
Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Good on the Supreme Court. It's about time they shut that annoying heathen up.
Comment