Posted on 09/14/2005 1:26:12 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday it is unconstitutional for public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he's bound by precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2002 that it was unconstitutional for the Pledge to be recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court threw out that case, ruling that Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow had no standing to bring the legal action.
Newdow objected to the words "under God" in the pledge.
Newdow brought the second case to the federal court -- this time, representing unidentified parents and their children.
Wednesday's decision sets up another constitutional showdown over the pledge.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
@#$#ing liberal activist judges!
Someone please saw off SF and float it out to sea.
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.
Sick Roberts on those parasites.
Not a big deal. Higher court rulings are binding on lower courts. Even if it was a Pat Buchanan-appointee, he would have to uphold the Ninth Circus' ruling. The Supreme Court will probably reverse the ruling in the appeal. Probably by 5-4 or 6-3.
Say it anyway. Defy the court.
Aww, geez - not this shit again!!
Actually, you will be defying nothing.
How is a judge bound by a ruling of a lower court, that the SCOTUS tosses ?
I wonder if Jimmy Carter is happy with this?
Red Skelton said it best.
http://www.htconsult.com/Pledge.html
It was tossed on procedural grounds, but the reasoning still stands, and lower courts are still bound by it.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
A district court judge is bound by a decision of the appellate court for her circuit. However, a district court judge is NOT bound by a prior appellate decision which is subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court. A vacation essentially means that the 9th Circuit decision is a nullity. Of course since the vacation by the Supreme Court was on the basis of a lack of standing, a district court judge may decide to nevertheless follow the reasoning of the appellate court - but it is not required.
Federal Judge Declares the Constitution Unconstitutional
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.