Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Meanwhile, in San Francisco...


Not again.....(groan)

Federal Judge Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional

Sep 14, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

***SNIP**

I'm taking bets as to how the Ninth Circuit is going to rule.

Winner gets a dozen stuffed marmosets currently awaiting delivery as caption contest prizes.

2 comments:

Masked Menace© said...

Taking bets?

Are you kidding? The 9th is just shy of ruling the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional as it mentions God in the document. Since the Declaration will be void we'll revert back to a Brittish colony. On top of that it'll make it easier to justify using international law in our court cases.

And don't bother bringing up that the Constitution wasn't created until after the Declaration and so can't be applied to it. The constitution applies whenever the 9th says it applies. So there. :-p

Cassandra said...

I believe Menace has it about covered, smarty pants. I'll tell my staff to get right on it.