• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice Scalia to Stay Out of Pledge Case

X

xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Banned
I absolutely respect the decision made by our next Chief Justice...an honorable and ethical thing to do.


WASHINGTON ? Antonin Scalia will just be a spectator when the Supreme Court tackles the emotional Pledge of Allegiance case next year, sidelined apparently by one man's questions about the justice's impartiality.

The court, minus Scalia, said Tuesday it will decide if the regular morning classroom salute to the American flag is unconstitutional because of the reference to God.

Scalia did not explain why he will not take part in the most watched case of the term.

The announcement surprised court watchers and even Michael Newdow, the California parent and atheist who wants the words "under God" removed from the pledge. He sued on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter and won.

Newdow asked Scalia to stay out of the case at the high court because of comments the conservative justice made during a speech at a religious event. Scalia criticized the appeals court ruling in Newdow's favor.

"I think that was an amazingly courageous and upstanding thing for him to have done. He was right to do it. I didn't expect that he would," Newdow said.

Justices decide themselves whether they have personal or financial conflicts in cases, and they generally give no explanation when they sit out a case.

Scalia's recusal makes a potentially close case even more tight.

The remaining eight justices could deadlock 4-4. That would affirm the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ban on the religious reference, which would apply to 9.6 million schoolchildren in the nine states the court oversees: California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska, plus Guam.

"It makes our case more difficult," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is supporting the school district in the appeal. "We've got to find that fifth vote, and that fifth vote is not going to be Justice Scalia."

Newdow called attention to Scalia's remarks in a court filing. He said Scalia violated conduct rules that prevent judges from discussing the merits of cases during a speech at a "Religious Freedom Day" observance in January in Fredericksburg, Va.

The event was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men's service organization which campaigned in 1954 to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Scalia said in the speech that courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, and that the Pledge of Allegiance question would be better decided by lawmakers than judges.

After the speech, the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State called on Scalia to recuse himself from the pledge case and possibly other church-state cases.

"This seemed so over the top, to be this pointed and specific in criticizing a decision which you had every reason to believe would soon be on your plate," the Rev. Barry Lynn, the group's executive director, said Tuesday.

Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents, said he didn't think the remarks crossed the line, noting they were similar to Scalia's written observations. But he said Scalia's absence leaves the court in a bind.

"To the extent the court issues a muddled opinion, or worst of all worlds a tied opinion ... they will be doing more damage by taking the case than if they just left it alone," he said.

The justices will hear arguments and rule in the case next year.

Newdow, a doctor and lawyer representing himself in the case, hopes to argue the case but he must get special permission from the court.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Moonbeam If only he did the same on every case.
Click to expand...
Likewise in these threads, MirrorMan.
Click to expand...

Put your handbags away, ladies 😉

back on-topic - Its very sad that today such an act is as remarkable as it is.
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I absolutely respect the decision made by our next Chief Justice...an honorable and ethical thing to do.


WASHINGTON � Antonin Scalia will just be a spectator when the Supreme Court tackles the emotional Pledge of Allegiance case next year, sidelined apparently by one man's questions about the justice's impartiality.

The court, minus Scalia, said Tuesday it will decide if the regular morning classroom salute to the American flag is unconstitutional because of the reference to God.

Scalia did not explain why he will not take part in the most watched case of the term.

The announcement surprised court watchers and even Michael Newdow, the California parent and atheist who wants the words "under God" removed from the pledge. He sued on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter and won.

Newdow asked Scalia to stay out of the case at the high court because of comments the conservative justice made during a speech at a religious event. Scalia criticized the appeals court ruling in Newdow's favor.

"I think that was an amazingly courageous and upstanding thing for him to have done. He was right to do it. I didn't expect that he would," Newdow said.

Justices decide themselves whether they have personal or financial conflicts in cases, and they generally give no explanation when they sit out a case.

Scalia's recusal makes a potentially close case even more tight.

The remaining eight justices could deadlock 4-4. That would affirm the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ban on the religious reference, which would apply to 9.6 million schoolchildren in the nine states the court oversees: California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska, plus Guam.

"It makes our case more difficult," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is supporting the school district in the appeal. "We've got to find that fifth vote, and that fifth vote is not going to be Justice Scalia."

Newdow called attention to Scalia's remarks in a court filing. He said Scalia violated conduct rules that prevent judges from discussing the merits of cases during a speech at a "Religious Freedom Day" observance in January in Fredericksburg, Va.

The event was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men's service organization which campaigned in 1954 to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Scalia said in the speech that courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, and that the Pledge of Allegiance question would be better decided by lawmakers than judges.

After the speech, the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State called on Scalia to recuse himself from the pledge case and possibly other church-state cases.

"This seemed so over the top, to be this pointed and specific in criticizing a decision which you had every reason to believe would soon be on your plate," the Rev. Barry Lynn, the group's executive director, said Tuesday.

Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents, said he didn't think the remarks crossed the line, noting they were similar to Scalia's written observations. But he said Scalia's absence leaves the court in a bind.

"To the extent the court issues a muddled opinion, or worst of all worlds a tied opinion ... they will be doing more damage by taking the case than if they just left it alone," he said.

The justices will hear arguments and rule in the case next year.

Newdow, a doctor and lawyer representing himself in the case, hopes to argue the case but he must get special permission from the court.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
Click to expand...


He didn't really have much of a choice. That wasn't the brightest thing for him to say given his position.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"our next Chief Justice"

the horror..
Click to expand...

...for 27 years 🙂
Click to expand...

He is among the nine. He will remain but one vote no matter the title. I actually find his decisions reasoned and defensible. He is extremely sharp. I think he reads The Constitution from a perspective that surprises me he'd recuse himself on this issue. It is inconsistent, I think. The last thing I'd want is a 4/4 court. It ought to be a 9/0 decision. It is important for this court to once and for all times decide with a unanimous voice the issue of God and this Nation.
For Scalia to indicate he has a recusable issue in this case should mean that all cases that conflict with God are tainted by his vote, up or down. IMO
 
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
What does "under God" in the Pledge mean ?
Click to expand...

To each as they see it. That is the problem!

To me it indicates the nation follows what God ordained for mankind from a moral perspective. This then causes the Athiest to have no feeling of being grounded given 'one nation under a non existent being...' is offensive and meaningless..

I am Christian... I vote it goes.. ! We don't need it and we surely don't fully follow it.. so we've already said it is inappropriate and creates the sense of hipocracy..
 
"Under God" is shorthand for the nation existing and prospering under God's guidance. It was added to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954 so that we could distinguish ourselves from the godless communists -- in case you couldn't do it any other way.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Communism is just the opposite.🙂
 
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Why is it "under God" instead of "with God" ?
Click to expand...

Guess 'under' denotes subordinate and 'with' denotes peer.. and we all know we can't have that.. We'd be almighty too... as it were.. 😀
 
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Why is it "under God" instead of "with God" ?
Click to expand...
Because you got a sinning putz ass and aren't fit even to be in the same universe with God, much less with him. It should be 'way way under God'. Just read it as, I, like a fool who has no center in myself, pledge, as if I had the capacity to be true to my word, allegiance, when I don't even know what the word means, to a symbol of an abstraction and to a further abstraction for which it is abstracted, one nation, contemporaneously indivisible but falling apart at the seams, inferior by a long long shot to God, with liberty and justice for all who can buy it.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Why is it "under God" instead of "with God" ?
Click to expand...
Because you got a sinning putz ass and aren't fit even to be in the same universe with God, much less with him. It should be 'way way under God'. Just read it as, I, like a fool who has no center in myself, pledge, as if I had the capacity to be true to my word, allegiance, when I don't even know what the word means, to a symbol of an abstraction and to a further abstraction for which it is abstracted, one nation, contemporaneously indivisible but falling apart at the seams, inferior by a long long shot to God, with liberty and justice for all who can buy it.
Click to expand...

Comrad Beam... Tea and Vodka at the Dachau say... about nine tonight... 😀

And I wanted to get rid of the 'under God' part... 😀... Scalia is right to recuse himself... he can always look back and say... hey.. not me man.. they did it.. 🙂

 
LunarRay, as a matter of curiosity, why would it matter to Scalia if he got the credit/blame for the decision? He has a lifetime appointment (and I think that's a good thing).
 
Originally posted by: Whitling
LunarRay, as a matter of curiosity, why would it matter to Scalia if he got the credit/blame for the decision? He has a lifetime appointment (and I think that's a good thing).
Click to expand...

Well... I didn't say others would look at him.. I think I said "he can always look back and say... hey.. not me man.. they did it.." A case of introspection. I have to think a man like Scalia often looks into himself given the momentous impact of his decisions. I would think it would take a lifetime of decisions validated by introspection before one is satisfied they are true to the task at hand without second guessing themselves.
I believe life tenure provides the independence necessary to carry out the job. It, however, creates problems for the folks if the choices are very far from center. I'd much prefer 9/0 or 0/9 decisions then 5/4 or 4/5. They are reading the same constitution but, a philosophical difference makes the concurrence reading a bit slanted from the reading of the brethren dissenting.

 
As much as I find the words 'under god' to be fairly generic and innocuous, I do hope this results in a reversion to the original pledge. Without the godless commies around, it seems rather unnecessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top