Skip to comments.
Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer (Newdow)
Las Vegas Sun ^
| 1/06/05
| AP
Posted on 01/07/2005 4:01:42 AM PST by kattracks
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed a suit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration. Michael Newdow notes that two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's first inaugural ceremony in 2001, and that plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office Jan. 20.
In a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newdow says the use of a prayer is unconstitutional. The case is tentatively scheduled Jan. 14.
Last year, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the same lawsuit, saying Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury." But the decision did not bar him from filing the challenge in a different circuit.
Newdow is best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
He won that case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.
In June, however, the Supreme Court said Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter, on whose behalf he sued, and because the girl's mother objected to the suit.
Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this week, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: inagural; lawsuit; newdow; prayer; w2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
1
posted on
01/07/2005 4:01:43 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
This guy is getting seriously tedious. His tactic of venue shopping and repeatedly filing these lawsuits is getting him exactly what he wants - Airtime. He obviously has some serious personal issues, issues that the system appears all to willing to accommodate.
2
posted on
01/07/2005 4:07:23 AM PST
by
drt1
To: kattracks
And noone says this publicity seeking clown has to watch the inauguration or even be there. If he doesn't like it then he shouldn't pay attention to it.
hey Mr.Newdow, get a life and STFU
3
posted on
01/07/2005 4:09:15 AM PST
by
Jammz
("The only thing needed for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.")
To: kattracks
The only thing that will stop clowns like this Newdow is to utterly ignore him. This is a suit that should not be answered. Not in the least. I can't imagine a judge agreeing with him, but even he finds a tame one (there are one or two about) and the judge agrees with him, the judges ruling ought to be ignored to the extent that no one ever reads it. Then Newdow and the judge could have a beer together and exchange views.
If you ignore these clowns, maybe they will go play in someone elses sand box.
4
posted on
01/07/2005 4:12:03 AM PST
by
stevem
To: drt1
Well, all I can say is that about 150 years ago he would have already signed himself up for a new suit of tar and feathers. Sometimes, modernity isn't all it's cracked up to be.
5
posted on
01/07/2005 4:12:46 AM PST
by
Axeslinger
(Where has my country gone?)
To: kattracks
"I'm a self-important putz!"
6
posted on
01/07/2005 4:13:53 AM PST
by
bikepacker67
("This is the best election night in history." -- DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe 11/2/04 8pm)
To: kattracks
Newdow: HEY look at me, how come no one is paying attention to me anymore? I miss being on TV!!! This jerk needs to try and get on some reality TV show. At least some of them get paid for making idiots out of themselves in public.
7
posted on
01/07/2005 4:15:32 AM PST
by
BallyBill
(I'm a God fearing man and with many I stand....)
To: Axeslinger
Agreed. Frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't gone berserk on him - He is playing with fire in addition to toying with the legal system and society in general.
8
posted on
01/07/2005 4:16:11 AM PST
by
drt1
To: kattracks
I have always found it difficult to believe that anything that was being practiced during the lifetime of our founding fathers, especially if it was done time and again, could be considered unconstitutional! If was so darned unconstitutional then surely one of them would have stepped forward and put a stop to it! Religion was everywhere in public life in those days and if it had been such a threat to the nation I have no doubt Mr. Jefferson or one of his contemporaries would have spoken up. A simple "stop this" would have been all it took. I don't think something could have been OK then, but unconstitutional now.
I agree, I'm tired of this guy. He should have lost his access to the courts when he was discovered trying to pull the wool over their eyes on his standing in the first case.
I fear that as anti-religion as the press is these days he will have no problem getting his 15 minutes time and again!
My message to him is "go away and leave and alone!"
9
posted on
01/07/2005 4:16:42 AM PST
by
jwpjr
To: kattracks
He should run for President on the "I am so perfect that nothing can be greater than I" party.
When he wins (LOL), he can forbid prayer everywhere.
10
posted on
01/07/2005 4:17:46 AM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(expert, break it down, ex = has been, spurt = drip under pressure.)
To: kattracks
Why isn't Nudow simply committed for being a danger to the mental health of himself and others?
This guy is such a PITA (pain in the a@@).
11
posted on
01/07/2005 4:18:42 AM PST
by
xtinct
(I was the next door neighbor kid's imaginary friend.)
To: xtinct
The election was certified.
This guy is certifiable.
Maybe Babbling Boxer can help him mount a challenge...
12
posted on
01/07/2005 4:25:53 AM PST
by
WestVirginiaRebel
(Conservatism pays off. Liberalism just wants to be paid.)
To: BallyBill
Get him on Jerry Springer so somebody will kick the living s**t out of him!
13
posted on
01/07/2005 4:36:55 AM PST
by
fredhead
("It is a good thing war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." General Robert E. Lee)
To: kattracks
The inaugration hasn't even happened yet. How can he be harmed by something that will happen in the future?
14
posted on
01/07/2005 4:42:07 AM PST
by
X_CDN_EH
(regards wb)
To: kattracks; EggsAckley; Southflanknorthpawsis; doodlelady; Tamsey
15
posted on
01/07/2005 4:44:55 AM PST
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: X_CDN_EH
He's just a little pansy ass loser!
To: kattracks
Where's the American Mafia when you need them? The only way this guy should get recognition is when he pushing up daisy's from six foot under.
17
posted on
01/07/2005 4:51:24 AM PST
by
Issaquahking
( Bush won, PROTECT OUR BORDER'S- NOW! Stop the Illegals!!!We'll handle the PC and the ACLU losers.)
To: drt1
His poor daughter. Imagine having that clown for a dad.
To: Issaquahking
If we had loser pays these types of suits would never see the light of day..........
19
posted on
01/07/2005 4:55:47 AM PST
by
boilerfan
(Hoosier born and Boilermaker educated!)
To: boilerfan
Bingo! Loser pays is something that would do more to reform the Tort system than any award caps yet nowhere do I see this as a part of any proposed fix.
20
posted on
01/07/2005 4:59:41 AM PST
by
drt1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 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