Supreme Court to hear Pledge of Allegiance case March 24

Sac Bee ^ | 1/12/04 | Sandy Louey

[NormsRevenge]

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 24 as the date it will hear oral arguments over whether public school students can be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words

[Huck]

I predict under God comes out.

[Az Joe]

The SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to take "under God" out of the pledge.

[Huck]

A University of Michigan law school graduate and California State Bar member, Newdow does not have the minimum three years of professional legal experience normally required of lawyers who argue before the nation's highest bench. He makes his living practicing medicine

What an incredible experience. Damn. Can you imagine arguing a 1st amendment establishment clause case before the Supreme Court of the United States? As a side project?

[Buck W.]

SCOTUS has no accountability for any decision, unfortunately.

[sergeantdave]

Okay, here goes the pledge. Can't have any false gods before the holy 5 Supreme Marxists on the court.

[Coeur de Lion]

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 24 as the date it will hear oral arguments over whether public school students can be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God.”

Wrong! that case was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago. No student can be required to say the pledge whether it uses the words "under God" or not.

[Arthur McGowan]

Abolish government schools, and all these divisive controversies disappear.

[Veritas_est]

This is weird. I don't even like Newdow, but I am embarrassed for him and he has yet to speak the first irrelevance before the court.

I believe Coeur de Lion is correct when he states, "that case was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago. No student can be required to say the pledge whether it uses the words "under God" or not.

However, this will end up being a test for the phrase "under God" just the same. There are those who will not rest until they wrest every reference to God from public discourse.

[Republican Wildcat]

I don't know how they could...especially when the Court opens with the phrase "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

But they've done some weird things before. Plus, I believe this is the case where Scalia is recused...meaning to prevail, O'Connor must stay on the conservative side (which she has all but left in the last year) and one of the liberals must join...I'm not so optimistic about this.

[AndyTheBear]

Wrong! that case was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago. No student can be required to say the pledge whether it uses the words "under God" or not.

You beat me to it! The Sac Bee sure screwed up the facts.

[birdsman]

I'm hoping for a 5-4 decision in favor of keeping "under God". With a ruling due in August, a close vote will affect both the Presidential and Senate elections. The SCOTUS hearing this case in an election year should deeply sadden some democraps.

[randog]

I'm not so optimistic about this.

Why not? The SCOTUS is soooooooooooo conservative (according to our lib'ral friends).

[2nd Amendment]

After Souter and O'Conner consult the European Court of Justice, anything can happen!

[Devil_Anse]

So, the question is whether they can be REQUIRED to say "under God"?

Or is the question, whether the schools/government, etc., can FORBID them to say "under God"?

If it's ever the second question, then I say, encourage the child to say "under God". If he gets in trouble for saying it, then the person who disciplines him is depriving him of the First Amendment right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[Veritas_est]

So, the question is whether they can be REQUIRED to say "under God"? Or is the question, whether the schools/government, etc., can FORBID them to say "under God"?

As the former ruling by the Supreme Court has already established, no child can be forced to say the pledge with or without "under God".

What we are about to see is the court deciding whether or not to leave the phrase "under God" in the pledge.

On that issue, 2nd Amendment hit the nail on the hear. "After Souter and O'Conner consult the European Court of Justice, anything can happen!"

[Veritas_est]

. . . hit the nail on the head. Spell checker just won't catch errors like that :^)

[Devil_Anse]

Suppose the Court does not leave the phrase "under God" in the pledge. Then, suppose a child says those words anyway, in the appropriate place, while reciting the pledge. Legal?

[Devil_Anse]

Incidentally, I read an article that said Michael Newdow claimed that his former wife raped him. I believe that's how he explains the existence of their daughter.

[Veritas_est]

Suppose the Court does not leave the phrase "under God" in the pledge. Then, suppose a child says those words anyway, in the appropriate place, while reciting the pledge. Legal? I doubt if that will be covered in this decision. But it would seem to be a 1st amendment consideration then.

Some teacher is sure to make an issue of "separation" if it ever happens.

What a mess. I just know that I will continue to say the phrase regardless of the outcome of this case.