Rulings based on common usage rather than objective truth will all eventually be overturned.
Cruz/Bauman 2016!
How long before Judge gets his IRS audit paperwork?
A sane judge - IN NEW JERSEY?!!!!!
In my opinion atheists shouldn’t be experted to recite “under God” in the Pledge any more than Christian-owned businesses should be expected to provide services for gay-related events.
Abolish government schools.
Problem solved.
Wasn’t a 9th Circus Court ruling on this overturned at the SCOTUS a few years ago?
If those atheists jackasses are offended by the Pledge of Allegiance, they'll really flip out when it is pointed out to them that "Our Lord" is referenced at the tail end of the US Constitution.
When I recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public forum, I always leave out the word "indivisible". That is my pledge of allegiance to the country. I don't believe that, under all circumstances, the United States is "indivisible". I can foresee a number of situations where, in keeping with my oath as a soldier, it becomes patriotic and necessary to separate myself (my county, my State) from the United States. I support Texas independence; that makes the word "indivisible" meaningless in a pledge that I can currently make to the United States.
If the atheists don't like "under God", just don't say it when reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Finally, a judge that gets it!
there is no comma, nor should the phrase be spoken with a pause.
The absurdly of modern Federal edicts from the bench only serve to demonstrate the corruption of those issuing them, and the out of check power of their office in enforcing such lawless edicts upon a free people.
As perhaps one of the best of their kin once pointed out. Every tyrant in the world has a “bill of rights” which they impose and ignore selectively according to the interest of their own ideological dispositions which they can then simply call “interpenetration”.
The only thing that makes a country and people free is the structure of power which limits the ambition and capability of men in the state to issue edicts regardless of their intent. This is done by the force of other men in competing positions to nullify said abuses when they don’t line up with the law as written. Thus making rule of law rather than the rule one group of men.
The position of judge of course came from the position of arbitrator where specific disputes in a particular case of law could be resolved. Not where law itself in general could be dictated only its application.
The Federal courts have over the centuries progressively corrupted and expanded this power using the concept of common law to dictate that all cases of law must be decided in the same way, thus establishing a standard of application which they then choose to ignore in radical ways that depart not only from the common understanding of the text but also their previous actions on the same law. Thus making them a legislator in practice. With lower courts still bound the the common law being the peons of their army of enforcers, and the written law(made by the real legislator) being otherwise meaningless.
This isn’t rule of law its rule of 9 federal employees in black robes, and without law there can be no freedom. Only the ever changing ‘moral’ or ideological discretion of those employees.