Ok I didn't know the trial judge was just citing a holding that bound him. The posts I read, just got off that he was sitting in SF, and thus must be a nutter, a leftist, a homo, or all three. And so it goes.
Here's my question for you. SCOTUS has ruled that non compulsory recitation of the POA is perfectly constitutional (Barnette). 9th Circuit has ruled the same thing UnConstitutional because of the words "under God" (Newdow). Why is the District Judge not bound by SCOTUS holding in Barnett rather than 9th Circuit holding in Newdow?
I understand the holdings are based on different issues and that Barnette actually was ruled on prior to the addition of the words "under God" but nevertheless isn't the "law of the Land" that the POA is constitutional in school settings?