Here' comes the Judge

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

"Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools."

"Children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God"

let me see.......

Nope, no such right in the Constitution - just checked. See decision, see decision get overturned. Nuff said.

This throws out the thinking by the left that the justice to replace O'Connor should be "just like her!"

Heh, fat chance - in fact it's "gloves off now.

Note: My Birdie on the wire tells me that there is a "constitutional solution" to prayer in school, as well as a definitive wording on church and state in the works. If true, it's about time.

More at AnkleBiting Pundits.

Hmmmm, religion unconstitutional for kids but not for thugs?

UPDATE: I've reviewed the opinion here and it's totally laugable that he would actually say in his ruling that he has no choice but to support the 9th's rulling....

Balderdash! This is one flakey decision if I ever saw one.

Fact is that what Mr. Newdow has secured is a whole lot of extra "scrutiny" if this case goes - as it's expected to - back to the Supremes. They sent him packing because he had no standing to bring the suit in the first place vis; custody. Basically, he is just "playing games" and as a friend told me, the Justices are going to see straight through this when this returns to the court.

In the meantime this call to action from the ACLU:

"September 14, 2005

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, today called a federal district court decision in California declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional a flawed decision that underscores the importance of who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 2004, the high court dismissed a suit brought by California atheist Michael Newdow, who is currently challenging the Pledge in the California case where a decision was issued today.

“This decision is legally flawed and we’re hopeful that the decision ultimately will be overturned,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which supports the Pledge and filed in the Supreme Court case. “This is another example of a federal district court exhibiting hostility toward a time-honored tradition which has been defended by numerous Justices including Justice O’Connor who said eliminating such references ‘would sever ties to a history that sustains this nation even today.’ This decision underscores the importance of the federal judiciary and who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government and we’re hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately be rejected.”

In dismissing the suit in 2004, the high court rejected a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declaring the phrase “under God” in the Pledge unconstitutional. In addressing the constitutionality of the Pledge, Justice O’Connor concluded: “It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today.”

Newdow wants a rumble, well he's got it, and the Supreme Court is going to be loaded on the RIGHT side ready for him.

Good things happen when you win elections.

Rush Limbaugh said it all on his show today:

"The great thing is here we are -- I keep emphasizing this -- right in the middle of the Roberts confirmation hearings, and there's going to be another name nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and I remember what happened in 2002. Remember, that's a midyear, a midterm election year. The Democrats ran to the microphone faster than the Republicans did to denounce the Ninth Circus on this. They were saying, "Oh, no! We're going to get beat on values again. Oh, no!" So it will be interesting to see what they do now in this case, because, you know, the People for the American Way, the ACLU, those are some of these special interest groups that will appreciate this ruling and demand the Democrats, you know, take a position on it that these groups think favorable. So this is going to be fascinating to watch here, folks, fascinating to watch this -- and of course Roberts they'll ask, "What do you think about this, judge? The case may come before the court. What about the Constitution?"

"Well, I can't comment on this case. It may well indeed come before the court. If I'm confirmed I cannot go on the court with an affirmed position already stated or I would have to recuse myself."

So this may be two bags of excrement that they've stepped in here, folks, thanks to this atheist and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. You just have to love this."

More analysis at Capt Ed and Michelle Malkin

UPDATE: The MSM is beginning to whine.

Filed under