Supreme Court Weighs 'Under God' Reference in Pledge [Scalia Recuses Self]

Wash Post ^ | 10/14/03 | Charles Lane

[William McKinley]

The Supreme Court announced today that it will attempt to settle the legal battle over the Pledge of Allegiance -- but without the participation of one of its most conservative justices...

But, in a surprise move, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case, leaving only eight justices to hear arguments and reach a judgment. In the event of a 4-4 tie vote, the ruling of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court that struck down the pledge in schools would stand.

[Humidston]

Scalia recused himself???

Damn. Just damn!

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[firewalk]

bttt

[cgk]

Pretty much clears the way for this country once and for all to denounce God, doesn't it? He's one of the few Good Guys left up there.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Another excerpt:

"Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia."

""Under such circumstances . . . one might reasonably question his impartiality," Newdow wrote. "

[VRWC_minion]

This actually has an interesting angle if it the SC shoots it down by a split decision. Many Americans may be more concerned about the liberal judges on the bench than the conservatives that Bush would appoint.

Its the kind of issue that is easily used in a political battle.

[Dog Gone]

Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia.

[Spiff]

Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia. "Under such circumstances . . . one might reasonably question his impartiality," Newdow wrote.

Well, I bet all of the Justices have at one time or another recited the Pledge of Allegiance with the 'under God' intact. Maybe they should all recuse themselves too.

Are we saying that Supreme Court Justices can't hold nor speak of any of their personal opinions just in case some time in the future they have to consider a case that is somehow related? Maybe Justices should be gagged in public lest they let something slip out.

[jwalsh07]

Nothing requires Scalia to recuse, neither the rules of the SCOTUS or his speaking out on the issue.

That he has done so pisses me the hell off.

[tioga]

--so Scalia bows to the pc crowd?

[dagnabbit]

So now not only does Sandy Day have to wake up on the right side of the bed, but Souter will have to have seen an extra macho cowboy movie on TV at mummy's house the day of deliberations. The other three, JP Stevens (actuarial tables where are you??) and the two Clinton trolls are probably a lock for anything that lets them express their hatred of America.

[aristeides]

I would be willing to bet that, with or without Scalia, a majority will vote to overrule the Ninth Circus. If a majority wanted the Circus decision to stand, all they had to do was not take the case.

[Blackyce]

I'm so pissed right now. If this goes 4-4... He sure as hell better know how this will come out.

[aristeides]

Breyer and Souter were the two justices who, in Bush v. Gore, agreed with the majority that there had been a violation of equal protection, but disagreed about the remedy.

[dogbyte12]

Scalia was being ethical here is all. He probably didn't read the entire ruling, listen to all the arguments, before making public comments on the case in a speech. It left a question as to how impartial he would be on the merits. I think he could be, but he decided that his ethics require him to not hear this one. I applaud him for his decision, although I am worried about the impact.

It would have been better for him not to have been giving speeches on a case that was obviously headed his way though.

[jwalsh07]

Scalia is the spear that piths the left to the Constitutional Wall. Thomas doesn't say a word. I have no faith in Kennedy or O'Connor. None, nada, zippo.

Without Scalia arguing through questioning, O'Connor can and may be co-opted.

[AD from SpringBay]

Pretty much clears the way for this country once and for all to denounce God...

You're right. This could be it.

[jwalsh07]

Here Qwinn.

[litany_of_lies]

I hope that Scalia is doing this knowing that the remaining Supremes will overturn the 9th Circus without him.

If that occurs, no one can claim that Scalia ran roughshod over anyone or use him as the whipping boy.

I still don't like it.