Posted on 10/04/2004 1:34:12 PM PDT by rexcurrydotnet
WASHINGTON - Justices once again are considering a case involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Justices were asked this year whether the pledge and its reference to God belong in public schools. They got rid of the red-hot case without ruling on that issue.
Now, a Colorado man wants the court to decide if the oath belongs in courthouses.
Frank Herbert Wonschik was convicted of possessing parts for a machine gun in 2002 by a jury that recited the pledge after hearing a patriotic speech from the judge.
His federal public defender, Jill Wichlens, said in court papers that judges hearing cases involving the government now have an invitation to "begin trials in their cases by having the jurors pledge their allegiance to a party to the litigation."
The appeal is among more than 1,800 that justices will likely act on next week when they open a new nine-month term. Most of the appeals will be turned down.
"A denial in this case will be seen as a stamp of approval that there's nothing wrong with this practice," said lawyer David Porter of Sacramento. He works with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which opposes judge-led pledges.
Porter and other lawyers were unsure how common it is for judges to lead juries in the pledge to "one nation under God."
Wonschik was sentenced to more than two years in prison. He appealed on grounds that he did not get a fair trial.
Government lawyers argued that Wonschik had no basis to challenge the pledge because jurors, not Wonschik, were asked to recite it.
The Supreme Court found problems with its last Pledge of Allegiance case. They ruled that California atheist Michael Newdow could not pursue a case on behalf of his daughter because he did not have full legal custody of her.
In the Newdow case, Justice Antonin Scalia stepped down after Newdow complained that the conservative justice mentioned the case during a religious rally, and indicated he believes the pledge is constitutional.
Rex Curry, a Florida lawyer who wants justices to hear Wonschik's case, filed a request for Scalia to recuse himself from this case. Because Curry is not directly involved in the appeal, the paperwork is being treated as a "suggestion," and Scalia does not have to respond.
Curry argues that Scalia and other justices might be biased if they participated in "schools that had a daily robotic chanting on cue from the government."
What's wrong with possesing machine gun parts? Or was he selling the parts?
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.