Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state. At least for now, the decision - which came on Flag Day - leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge. The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her. Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor. (AP) Michael Newdow, who challenged the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is shown in... Full Image Justice Antonin Scalia removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional. "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. "I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights." The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him. The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath. The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states. Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily. The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere. The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God." The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case. The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion. The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court. It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said. Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court. Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March. The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages. On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight. "The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional." Congress adopted the pledge as a secular, patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold. Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism. The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040614/D836SD5G0.html I thought they couldn't find a way to pussy out of this decision --- but they pulled it off. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Yeah, that's fucking lame. Way to waste us a few more months of our time as someone else challenges it who actually has custody of their kids. It won't be heard before the election, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted June 14, 2004 So I take it that I can look forward to starting every summer off with a lawsuit over this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Umm, isn't Newdow an atheist? I coulda sworn I heard that. If true --- how is he also an ordained minister? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Good God, I know there are some chicks on the court, but grow a set, will you? This isn't like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Good God, I know there are some chicks on the court, but grow a set, will you? This isn't like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education... Am I the only one can picture the Justices having sissy slapfights? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Better that than a Ginsburg/Connor ticklefight... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Better that than a Ginsburg/Connor ticklefight... Justice-porn. That's a genre that has not yet been touched. -=Mike ..."Forget seperating church and state, seperate my legs first..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Now that is something I never wanted to think about... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Now that is something I never wanted to think about... Mike: Killing your libido since about 15 minutes ago. -=Mike .."Oh no, Sandra, you're walking towards the sprinker in a white T-shirt --- and no undergarments..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 O'Connor I can handle. It's the one below... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Newdow is an atheist, Mike, according to the stories which appeared in the papers when this first became news. As an atheist myself, I'm ashamed to share a philosophy with such an absolute waste of sperm and egg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 O'Connor I can handle. It's the one below... I think the reason Clinton nominated Bader-Ginsburg is because she's the only female judge he wouldn't have considered groping during the confirmation hearing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Atheist doesn't come close to describing this ass. Atheist don't believe in God, Newdow thinks he's better than God. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 So...they threw it out because he doesn't have full legal rights to act as his daughter's legal representative, and not because it says "under God" in it? Okay... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Eh, I like it, I guess. It'll keep extinguish the arguements for a while, and it gives that guy a nice slap on the wrist for using his daughter to advance an idea that even he privately admits he did just for himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Newdow is an atheist, Mike, according to the stories which appeared in the papers when this first became news. As an atheist myself, I'm ashamed to share a philosophy with such an absolute waste of sperm and egg. How can an athiest also claim to be an ordained minister? It'd be like me saying I'm a disciple of Santa Claus --- even though I don't believe he exists. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Well that was a complete waste of time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 the fact that this was before the supreme court was almost a joke in itself. No one can be foreced to recite the pledge let alone the phrase "under god" and anyone offended by the phrase has some serious self esteem issues. Now personally, if you stuck a ballot in front of me, I would gladly vote to have "under god" taken out, however it is so low on my scale of importance right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Has anyone suggested "One Nation, under Reagan" yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Has anyone suggested "One Nation, under Reagan" yet? Only those burning in HELL... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted June 15, 2004 In a way, I'm glad this case was struck down this way. "Yeah, the decision is delayed, because THIS prick couldn't legally do it, so blame it on him." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
