Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Weighs 'Under God' Reference in Pledge [Scalia Recuses Self]
Wash Post ^
| 10/14/03
| Charles Lane
Posted on 10/14/2003 4:30:07 PM PDT by William McKinley
The Supreme Court announced today that it will attempt to settle the legal battle over the Pledge of Allegiance -- but without the participation of one of its most conservative justices...
But, in a surprise move, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case, leaving only eight justices to hear arguments and reach a judgment. In the event of a 4-4 tie vote, the ruling of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court that struck down the pledge in schools would stand.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; constitution; creator; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; godlessnation; judicialfiat; law; naturesgod; pledgeofallegiance; reprobate; scalia; scotus; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-142 next last
To: William McKinley
Scalia recused himself???
Damn. Just damn!
2
posted on
10/14/2003 4:34:02 PM PDT
by
Humidston
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
To: All
"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered
|
3
posted on
10/14/2003 4:34:33 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: William McKinley
bttt
4
posted on
10/14/2003 4:35:19 PM PDT
by
firewalk
To: Humidston
Pretty much clears the way for this country once and for all to denounce God, doesn't it? He's one of the few Good Guys left up there.
5
posted on
10/14/2003 4:36:13 PM PDT
by
cgk
(Rummy on WMD: We haven't found Saddam Hussein yet, but I don't see anyone saying HE didn't exist.)
To: William McKinley
Another excerpt:
"Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia."
""Under such circumstances . . . one might reasonably question his impartiality," Newdow wrote. "
To: William McKinley
This actually has an interesting angle if it the SC shoots it down by a split decision. Many Americans may be more concerned about the liberal judges on the bench than the conservatives that Bush would appoint.
Its the kind of issue that is easily used in a political battle.
7
posted on
10/14/2003 4:37:20 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Humidston
Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia.
8
posted on
10/14/2003 4:37:51 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: William McKinley
Scalia offered no public explanation for his unusual and unexpected decision, but Newdow filed papers with the court last month, asking for Scalia's recusal based on the fact that the justice had spoken critically of the appeals court's ruling at a January 13 Knights of Columbus-sponsored religious freedom rally in Virginia. "Under such circumstances . . . one might reasonably question his impartiality," Newdow wrote. Well, I bet all of the Justices have at one time or another recited the Pledge of Allegiance with the 'under God' intact. Maybe they should all recuse themselves too.
Are we saying that Supreme Court Justices can't hold nor speak of any of their personal opinions just in case some time in the future they have to consider a case that is somehow related? Maybe Justices should be gagged in public lest they let something slip out.
9
posted on
10/14/2003 4:38:35 PM PDT
by
Spiff
(Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
To: William McKinley
Nothing requires Scalia to recuse, neither the rules of the SCOTUS or his speaking out on the issue.
That he has done so pisses me the hell off.
10
posted on
10/14/2003 4:39:28 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: William McKinley
--so Scalia bows to the pc crowd?
11
posted on
10/14/2003 4:41:57 PM PDT
by
tioga
To: William McKinley
So now not only does Sandy Day have to wake up on the right side of the bed, but Souter will have to have seen an extra macho cowboy movie on TV at mummy's house the day of deliberations. The other three, JP Stevens (actuarial tables where are you??) and the two Clinton trolls are probably a lock for anything that lets them express their hatred of America.
12
posted on
10/14/2003 4:42:06 PM PDT
by
dagnabbit
(leeches: good for what ails you)
To: jwalsh07
I would be willing to bet that, with or without Scalia, a majority will vote to overrule the Ninth Circus. If a majority wanted the Circus decision to stand, all they had to do was not take the case.
To: jwalsh07
I'm so pissed right now. If this goes 4-4... He sure as hell better know how this will come out.
14
posted on
10/14/2003 4:43:44 PM PDT
by
Blackyce
(President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
To: dagnabbit
Breyer and Souter were the two justices who, in Bush v. Gore, agreed with the majority that there had been a violation of equal protection, but disagreed about the remedy.
To: tioga
Scalia was being ethical here is all. He probably didn't read the entire ruling, listen to all the arguments, before making public comments on the case in a speech. It left a question as to how impartial he would be on the merits. I think he could be, but he decided that his ethics require him to not hear this one. I applaud him for his decision, although I am worried about the impact.
It would have been better for him not to have been giving speeches on a case that was obviously headed his way though.
To: aristeides
Scalia is the spear that piths the left to the Constitutional Wall. Thomas doesn't say a word. I have no faith in Kennedy or O'Connor. None, nada, zippo.
Without Scalia arguing through questioning, O'Connor can and may be co-opted.
17
posted on
10/14/2003 4:47:21 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: cgk
Pretty much clears the way for this country once and for all to denounce God...
You're right. This could be it.
18
posted on
10/14/2003 4:50:18 PM PDT
by
AD from SpringBay
(We have the government we allow and deserve.)
To: Qwinn
Here Qwinn.
19
posted on
10/14/2003 4:53:03 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
I hope that Scalia is doing this knowing that the remaining Supremes will overturn the 9th Circus without him.
If that occurs, no one can claim that Scalia ran roughshod over anyone or use him as the whipping boy.
I still don't like it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-142 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson