[CondorFlight]

I guess 'stare decisis' ('a thing decided'), has no weight at all when it comes to traditional practices.

Of course, in a court (with Roe vs. Wade) it is supposed to carry all the weight in the world. . .

[RobbyS]

Remembering that Roe v. Wade basically violated the doctrine of stare decisis. It cited no relevant precedent prior to 1960.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I guess 'stare decisis' ('a thing decided'), has no weight at all when it comes to traditional practices.

In the case of The Pledge of Allegiance...res ipsa loquitur.

[saFeather]

I guess 'stare decisis' ('a thing decided'), has no weight at all when it comes to traditional practices.

How ironic, considering that the judge in question relied precisely on 'stare decisis' to make his ruling, relying on the precedent set by the 2002 court on this very matter.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. The government has no business forcing children to recite such a patently nationalistic oath anyway, and to compound it by coercing acknowlegement of a religious entity just makes it worse.