Posted on 06/14/2004 1:01:08 PM PDT by Temple Owl
From: liberty@lc.org
Reply-To: liberty@lc.org
Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: A Unanimous Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision Striking Down „Under God‰ In The Pledge Of Allegiance
June 14, 2004
A Unanimous Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision Striking Down "Under God" In The Pledge Of Allegiance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous decision, that Michael Newdow, an atheist from California who had challenged the constitutionality of the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, did not have standing to bring his case. The legal effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is to vacate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck the words "Under God" from the pledge. Liberty Counsel, a nationwide civil liberties legal defense and education organization headquartered in Orlando, Florida, filed an Amicus Brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case.
The Supreme Court decision held that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring his case because he did not have the legal authority to speak on behalf of his daughter. Mr. Newdow is currently involved in a custody battle with his ex-wife. Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor issued a concurring opinion agreeing that Mr. Newdow lacked standing, but also arguing that the phrase "Under God" in the pledge is constitutional.
The legal effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision holding the pledge to be unconstitutional. After today’s ruling, it is as if Mr. Newdow had never brought his case in the courts. Prior to today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, schoolchildren in states covered by the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) were barred from saying the pledge of allegiance with the inclusion of the phrase "Under God." Now, there is no prohibition against saying the entire pledge in those states.
Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "We are pleased that the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is to uphold the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance. Schoolchildren in states covered by the Ninth Circuit can now say the entire pledge of allegiance without fear of censorship." Staver continued, "Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor are correct that the pledge of allegiance is constitutional. Our history is not complete without God. If "under God" were removed, many history books and founding documents will be in jeopardy, not the least of which is the Declaration of Independence."
###
The United States Supreme Court's Opinion will be posted on its web site later today. Read the brief filed by Liberty Counsel before the Supreme Court.
Make a tax-deductible online donation to this ministry
Liberty Counsel , headquartered in Orlando, Florida, is a national public interest law firm dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. On the campus of Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia, Liberty Counsel's Center for Constitutional Litigation and Policy trains attorneys, law students, policymakers, legislators, clergy and world leaders in constitutional principles and government policies.
Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Liberty Counsel
PO Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
800-671-1776
Please forward this email to your entire address book. We respect your privacy and will not share your contact information with others.
Restoring the culture one case at a time by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life
and the traditional family
Your prayers are being answered.
Not much of a win. The SCOTUS only decided that the person who filed the lawsuit had no grounds to file it. They did NOT decide that the "Under God" portion of the pledge was constitutional. So expect a rash of lawsuits from other people with "better standing" to be introduced...
Notice, too, that the decision was unanimous, including the leftists on the court. I suspect this is due to the fact that this is an election year and the Democrats do not want it known that their people would back a cause that is so unpopular. Particularly given the fact that this election will be used to determine who gets to pick the replacements for the retiring judges on the court.
Precisely, they took a coward's stand, very John Kerryish.
"I was for banning it until I realized that the person wanting it banned did not have the right to ask."
This is not a victory just a delay tactic.
He may be highly educated but needs to read more Orwell.
Yep, won't take long before some anti-Christian crazy seizes on the SCOTUS language to bring his/her own suit. I'd be willing to be that no later than December, 2005, "Under God" will be stricken down by this same court.
Actually, the battle isn't over. Because five of the eight participating justices handled this case on jurisdictional grounds (standing to bring suit), a custodial parent can bring the same claim and avoid the standing problem. However, even if that parent is in the 9th Circuit, the outcome at that level could be different. Because the Supremes' decision on standing vitiates the 9th Circuit's decision, the merits of the 9th's decision (that the Pledge is unconstitutional) is not binding on any later panel of that court. There are some conservatives on that court, and if the next case draws at least two conservatives (for a panel of three) then it could go the other way. At that point, it would all depend on whether there are enough votes in the 9th to take it en banc and not just let the panel opinion stand. But in any event, we will almost certainly see another case filed soon by a custodial parent, and by the time it reaches the Supremes, we could have one or two new justices up there.
Amen!
Don't think so. The case should never have gotten to them and wouldn't have except for the 9th doing their usual end run around the constitution and the law of the land.
Now let the lefties start over from square one. Make 'em fight for every inch.
this SCOTUS will do a "package deal" in time - they will toss "under god" and the federal defense of marriage act together.
there are 5 votes (6 against the DOMA) for just about any liberal social policy on this court. unless Bush wins and we can replace 2 of the liberals, we are in big trouble.
'The Game':
To remove 'God' and it's references from American society.
The DEMOCRAT PARTY is up to bat.
Top of the line-up:
Atheists up to bat. Long fly ball to the fence. One Out!
9th Circuit Court on deck.
ACLU in the hole.
Next, Batter up!!!
The 'game' continues . . . .
I don't know about other counties, but the head school administrator for Washoe County, NV said the 9th could cram it when the ruling came down.
lifetime appointment for all federal judges should end - a 15 year maximum term, and that's it.
Well, don't forget... dicta doesn't really exist. Recall, Dred Scott didn't have standing, but the "dicta" created that monsterous phantom called "Procedural Due Process."
Rhenquist, O'Conner, and Thomas (Scalia recused) have provided future litigants with a powerful cache of legal ammo to use to preserve the pledge.
Good point. How does the 9th District keep turning out this crap. Can't they be impeached?
Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time until the rats try it again...... but I'll be happy until then at least.........
"Good point. How does the 9th District keep turning out this crap. Can't they be impeached?"
The 9th Circuit is huge (up to 25 judges now, I believe, maybe more.) It includes some majorly liberal judges as well as some fairly conservative ones. Because it's so big, it's a crapshoot as to what type of panel a case gets. If you draw 2 or 3 of the liberals, you get a very different outcome then if you'd drawn a couple of the conservatives. As a result, you get liberal decisions like in Newdow but also some conservative ones. I feel sorry for lawyers in those states--there is little predictability or certainty in many points of law out there because it all depends on which judges are drawn (to a much higher degree than in the other circuits, at least.)
As far as impeachment goes, none of them have committed a criminal offense or violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics, at least not through a decision. But if you catch one of them accepting gifts from a litigant....
At least 4 (based on the safe assumption that Scalia would agree with the dissents of Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist) of the current justices would hold that the Pledge isn't a constitutional violation. As for the other 5, some of them are likely to say it is (although they avoided the question this time around, perhaps signalling that at least one of them would have gone with the Rehnquist group and created a 4-4 split had they not decided based on standing.) However, by the time another case makes its way up, we could have at least one new Court member. The current Court is pretty old, and the replacements will depend on who is in the White House and Senate (for confirmation purposes.) This year's election is important for much more than foreign policy--the direction of legal issues like this depend on having a conservative in the WH and a good conservative majority in the Senate so that the Court doesn't get new liberal members.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.