Cruise Doctor - no wonder his wife left him...
Posted on 01/17/2005 10:33:25 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 17, 2005--The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, said today it is pleased that a federal appeals court has rejected a request by Michael Newdow to prohibit prayer at this Thursday's Presidential inauguration. A federal district court on Friday rejected Newdow's request for an injunction to stop the clergy prayers and late Sunday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected his appeal. Newdow is now expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and stop the prayers.
"We're delighted to see the courts continue to uphold a time-honored tradition and we have every reason to believe that the prayers will take place as scheduled on Thursday," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which has challenged Newdow's lawsuits in the past. "This legal challenge has no merit and the courts have repeatedly held that such expressions do not violate the constitution. We're pleased that now a second court -- a federal appeals court -- has rejected this faulty challenge. If Newdow persists and asks the Supreme Court to get involved, we will support the Department of Justice's position and file a brief with the high court in support of the constitutionality of the prayers."
On Friday, a federal district court rejected Michael Newdow's challenge and late Sunday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the appeal. Newdow has said he will appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a decision issued on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates rejected Newdow's legal challenge saying "there is a strong argument, that at this late date, the public interest would best be served by allowing the 2005 Inauguration ceremony to proceed on January 20 as planned."
The court continued: "That would be consistent with the inclusion of clergy prayer in all Presidential inaugurations since 1937, and with the inclusion of religious prayer or reference in every inauguration commencing with the first inauguration of President Washington in 1789. To do otherwise, moreover, would at this eleventh hour cause considerable disruption in a significant, carefully-planned, national event, requiring programming and other adjustments. The material change requested by Newdow in an accepted and well-established historical pattern of short prayers or religious references during Presidential inaugurations, based on this last-minute challenge, is not likely to serve the public interest, particularly where Newdow's ability to proceed with this action remains in doubt and there is no clear evidence of impermissible sectarian proselytizing."
In briefs filed in connection with this case, the ACLJ contends the constitutionality of the inaugural prayer is settled law with the Supreme Court in 1983 concluding in its decision in Marsh v. Chambers that the "opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country." The high court also noted that the First Congress "did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's official seal of approval on one religious view."
Last year, the ACLJ filed a brief at the Supreme Court opposing Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, which the high court rejected. Newdow has filed a new lawsuit once again challenging the Pledge and the ACLJ will again file briefs opposing that challenge.
The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.
also,.......what is the ACLJ doing re: the Dover,PA.....situation?
Who is funding him and when will he begin to be fined? This is ridiculous. Everyone has to suffer because of his personal failings and agenda.
I have no problem with this ruling, but it sure does contradict a lot of other court rulings recently. If prayer at the Inauguration is OK (and I think it is), then the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in court houses and Judge Moore should get his job back. Additionally, the govt. should stop stripping anything remotely religious from govt. buildings and running off people who go against their fatwa to rid govt. facilities of such things. (Like my wish list here is really gonna happen.)
One more than will end up telling him he's a jerk.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chief Justice Rehnquist has the responsibility of appeals from the DC Circuit. Seeing he has had no problems with this over the last 5 inaugurations (which he presided over), a snowball has a better chance of surviving eternity in Hell.
I know that because I got a denial of relief from CJ Warren Burger in exactly that form. LOL.
Congressman Billybob
Legend hath it that a state judge in South Carolina wrote "Denied. Plaintiff's attorney fined $100 for wasting my time with this. Some of my brain cells died in vain while reading this tripe." (Initialed.)
From the decision by Justice John D. Bates:
Newdow has clarified in his Reply that he is also injured because he will choose not to attend the inauguration if religious prayers are given. This additional injury is inconsistent with his Complaint, where he asserts that he will go to the Inauguration and that he will be harmed by exposure to prayers. He cannot simultaneously be injured by attending an inauguration where prayers are read and by not attending the event because prayers will be read.And,
There is a strong argument that, at this late date, the public interest would best be served by allowing the 2005 Inauguration ceremony to proceed on January 20 as planned. That would be consistent with the inclusion of clergy prayer in all Presidential inaugurations since 1937, and with the inclusion of religious prayer or reference in every inauguration commencing with the first inauguration of President Washington in 1789. To do otherwise, moreover, would at this eleventh hour cause considerable disruption in a significant, carefully-planned, national event, requiring program and other adjustments. The material change requested by Newdow in an accepted and well-established historical pattern of short prayers or religious references during Presidential inaugurations, based on this last-minute challenge, is not likely to serve the public interest, particularly where Newdow's ability to proceed with this action remains in doubt and there is no clear evidence of impermissible sectarian proselytizing.Personally, I'd like to see Rehnquist issue an opinion. I don't think he'd write that Newdow is a blooming idiot, but I have a dream.
Methinks he's too much of a twerp EVER to get the message.
AGREED!!!!!!!!!!
The present Supreme Court will never issue an opinion strongly reaffirming the role of religion in the public square. When they last had a chance to do so, e.g., the pledge of allegiance case, they simply ducked the issue and dismissed it for "lack of standing" by Newdow (who was the non-custodial parent). On the other hand, when given an opportunity to do so, they will happily continue to chisel away at religious expression rights as violative of the separation doctrine.
We can only hope that W has an opportunity not just to replace Rehnquist with a like minded conservative but also to replace one of the so-called "moderates" like O'Connor or Kennedy or better yet, a liberal like Stevens.
ACLJ? At first glance I thought part of the U got chopped.
Just reading the dry words of that decision, you understand that Newdow is a world-class jerk who uses everyone and everything, beginning with his daughter, to advance his twisted ideas of what the First Amendment says and means. The good thing about Newdow, as compared with the ACLU, is that he is so obviously a fool. Instead of trying to sneak up on God-fearing Americans with incremental assaults on beliefs and religions, he mounts these frontal assaults that have no chance of success.
In the long run, however, Newdow is fouling the nest for the ACLU, and that is a good thing.
Congressman Billybob
Agreed. In fact, he's making President Bush's arguments against activist judges stronger as well. I hope the president adds a one liner b*tch slapping Newdow to his inaugration speech.
Salute to the ACLJ! The only organization that can kick the ACLU's butt.
Because there are only 4 3 conservative justices on that court. It was disgusting to watch Justice Breyer on C-SPAM last week praising foreign court decisions and their relevance to US constitutional decisions.
I agree. If he's an athiest, then God is simply a fantasy, the Bible is so much gibberish and prayers are just mumbling. I don't see either what his beef is nor what material damage is being done to him.
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.