Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Declares Pledge Of Allegiance Unconstitutional
Click2Houston.com ^ | 1:07 pm CDT September 14, 2005 | AP

Posted on 09/14/2005 1:26:12 PM PDT by FreedomCalls

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: jess35
Yes it was. As the article says, "The Supreme Court threw out that case, ruling that Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow had no standing to bring the legal action."

No standing means no decision - the case never existed. It is of no value for the sake of precedence. The SC ruling that the gentleman had no standing is a ruling that he had no standing in any other court. Therefore no court could hear the matter. Period.

41 posted on 09/14/2005 5:05:49 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

When they meet their Maker, then they can decide about God!


42 posted on 09/14/2005 5:08:00 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

If we can find out who allied themselves with Newdow, (such as People for the American Way, American Atheist Assoc.,and others) if they filed an amicus brief we can tie them with the opposition to Roberts and link them at the hip with the democrats. How does on find out if someone file a friend of the court brief?


43 posted on 09/14/2005 5:13:45 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

If we can find out who allied themselves with Newdow, (such as People for the American Way, American Atheist Assoc.,and others) if they filed an amicus brief we can tie them with the opposition to Roberts and link them at the hip with the democrats. How does one find out if someone file a friend of the court brief?


44 posted on 09/14/2005 5:13:58 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
By the way, have you seen the quotes from Roger Baldwin, the founding Director of the ACLU? (the italics are in the original)

I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

Proletarian Liberty in Practice

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

I saw in the Soviet Union many opponents of the regime. I visited a dozen prisons — the political sections among them. I saw considerable of the work of the OGPU. I heard a good many stories of severity, even of brutality, and many of them from the victims. While I sympathized with personal distress I just could not bring myself to get excited over the suppression of opposition when I stacked it up against what I saw of fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. . . .

[I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept “workers’ democracy” as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.


45 posted on 09/14/2005 5:31:11 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

The Ninth Circuit Circus can SHOVE OFF. The need to get a third grader to read the U. S. Constitution to them so they can understand it.


46 posted on 09/14/2005 5:33:33 PM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nosofar

These morons can keep declaring the Constitution unconstitutional, thinking that their god-like dictates will be upheld by the adoring masses. They live in a delusional world. I know for a fact that public school teachers still pray every day with their students in South Carolina. They will say the pledge as well. By the way, our courthouse here in the panhandle of Florida still displays a very large display of the ten commandments. The liberals cant control us all and they cant kill us all. Resist the evil!


47 posted on 09/14/2005 6:21:23 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Meanwhile in 49 other states that are not terminally struck by liberalism and idiocy,

Regretfully, we Massholes do not fall under your sweeping generalization of "49 other states that are not terminally struck by liberalism and idiocy." We are all about liberalism and idiocy.

48 posted on 09/14/2005 6:33:42 PM PDT by j_tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jess35

The original ruling of the 9th Circuit WAS overruled - it was reversed by the Supreme Court. The fact that it was reversed on the issue of standing does not mean that the 9th Circuit's opinion with respect to other issues in the case somehow still survive.


49 posted on 09/14/2005 7:19:31 PM PDT by The Noodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
This issue should never have gotten past the local school boards, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!

The rabid left (knowing damn well that the only way to forward their satanic agenda is to short-circuit the democratic process via activist courts) just HAD to send in the clowns - er - lawyers and get it ratcheted up to what it is today.

Jerks!

50 posted on 09/14/2005 9:00:45 PM PDT by FierceDraka (The Democratic Party - Aiding and Abetting The Enemies of America Since 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calif4Bush
What is happening to my country?

It's getting dismantled, piece by piece.

51 posted on 09/14/2005 10:08:42 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (We're living in the Dark Ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

That was what I thought too.


52 posted on 09/15/2005 2:07:55 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

When they meet their Maker, then they can decide about God!

There are no atheists on deathbeds, in foxholes, or on death row (just before you know what).


53 posted on 09/15/2005 2:09:57 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FierceDraka

This issue should never have gotten past the local school boards, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Exactly.


54 posted on 09/15/2005 2:11:48 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Idiots, the lot of them.


55 posted on 09/15/2005 8:12:03 AM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (America wants to be free from free from "a coercive requirement to affirm" Michael Newdow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
No the reasoning does not still stand. The case was tossed. It is not a precedent for anything. Period.

It does, actually, whether you agree with it or not. The Ninth Circus of Appeals has come to the conclusion that citing the Pledge violates the First Amendment and that had nothing to to with the grounds on which the Supreme Court vacated (the fact that Newdow did not have custody).
56 posted on 09/15/2005 10:13:40 AM PDT by DoraC (Ceterum censeo Palaestinam esse delendam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
The time has come and gone for popular and governmental nullification of idiotic Court decisions like this one.

As long as we contentedly sit by and permit such moronic edicts to be imposed on us by these tyrants, they will grow ever more bolder and more unsatiated in their appetites for power.
57 posted on 09/15/2005 10:17:51 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"The Ninth Circuit strikes again."

This was NOT the 9th Circuit. It was a District Court judge. A Federal District Court judge is a trial court judge. The 9th Circuit is an Appellate Court and will be the next stop for this case. After the 9th Circuit decides THEN you can bitch about the circus because they will undoubtedly follow the the District Court's kooky leftist lead.

58 posted on 09/15/2005 10:20:03 AM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoraC
That had nothing to to with the grounds on which the Supreme Court vacated

Wrong. The SC vacated the ruling. You may like the argument and can try it again in the next case, but it is not a precedent. Because there was no standing, as the SC decided, no one had any right to rule in the first place, there is no judgment and therefore there is no precedent. Once the SC has found grounds to throw out a case, it needn't rule on each argument in the case. Since there is no standing, the SC and any lessor Court is specifically prohibited from judging the merits.

Precedents are established by deciding cases, not by expressing opinions.

59 posted on 09/15/2005 7:15:44 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp

60 posted on 09/16/2005 8:28:05 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson