Posted on 06/15/2010 2:03:05 PM PDT by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) - The self-professed atheist who failed to get the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the phrases “One Nation Under God” (in the Pledge of Allegiance) and “So Help Me God” (in the presidential oath of office) is not giving up on his effort.
California attorney and physician Michael Newdow filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Wednesday requesting an en banc (full panel) re-hearing of Newdow v. Roberts – the lawsuit Newdow filed to try to stop Chief Justice John Roberts from using the phrase "so help me God" when he administered the oath of office to then-President-elect Obama.
The suit, which Newdow originally filed Dec. 31, 2008 allong with more than a dozen atheist and humanist groups, also sought a ban on the inclusion of prayers – both the invocation and the benediction – in presidential inaugurations and other official swearing-in or oath-taking ceremonies.
A temporary restraining order was denied in January, and on March 12, 2009, federal Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington ruled that Newdow and the other plaintiffs lacked the necessary standing to bring the case to court. Just over a year later, on May 7 of this year, a three-judge panel affirmed Walton's order.
Bob Ritter, co-counsel with Newdow on the lawsuit and staff attorney for the American Humanist Association, said the appeals court should grant the re-hearing.
"I continue to firmly believe that the religious practices of presidential inaugural ceremonies run afoul of the First Amendment, and the courts have the judicial power to declare these acts unconstitutional and enjoin such practices from occurring at future ceremonies," Ritter said.
But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice said that Newdow is waging an uphill battle.
“(It’s) not a surprise, but I think it’s a futile effort, because he (Newdow) doesn’t have any real sympathy on the court – both on the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court – for his position,” Sekulow told CNSNews.com.
“Justice O’Connor, in the original Newdow case, made the statement that we are a country founded by religious refugees and that our history binds us to that tradition. And I think that’s where a majority of the court still is – maybe more so now with the changes in the court."
Sekulow added: "Look, he has the right to do it, but it’s an uphill battle for him to say the least.”
Sekulow, one of the nation's premier legal experts in religious freedom cases, said he doubts if the D.C. Circuit will grant an "en banc" review, which is reconsideration of a case by all of the judges in the circuit -- not just by a three-judge panel.
Even if they do, Sekulow said, "I’m convinced that he won’t get certiorari ”-- the writ of acceptance that the Supreme Court issues for cases it chooses to hear.
Change it to, “so help me Obama.”
That guy needs to get a job. Way too much time on his hands.
One of these days God is gonna get really ticked...
“Change it to, “so help me Obama.”
I wish this idiot would take after Mohammad...in an illustrated pamphlet...
Who funds this clown?
ROFL!
Every one needs a hobby, I guess.
I don’t know for sure but have read in the past that atheist groups have.
So I guess he sues himself for procedures he screws up and uses his share of the settlements to fund his follies.
Teacher: "Johnny can you quote the 1st Amendment?"
Johnny: "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Teacher: "Aren't you forgetting, 'Separation of Church and State' Johnny?"
Johnny: "With all due respect teacher those words are no where to be found in our constitution. Those are words that are taken out of context and used by people who hate any accountability to their Creator.
Teacher: "Really? I didn't know that. Hmmmm."
I know some gentlemen who after 24 hours with Newdow would have praying to every divinity he ever heard of and a few new ones. He needs the fear of God put into him.
Neither “So help me God” nor “I swear” are required for any office or position in this country, down to including enlisting in the Army. Any person is allowed to say “So help me” or “I affirm” instead. Or they could just screw it up like Obama.
Exactly how does this then violate the rights of an atheist?
Well stated!
No way, as I see it.
That can be taken two ways, respecting an existing religious establishment of the people, or respecting the government itself establishing a religion. Given that the BOR is about the rights of the individual and restricting the powers of the government, I do think this should be taken both ways, which would be the most restrictive upon the government. This does create an effective separation of church and state in the way that Jefferson meant it, in that the state cannot persecute a religion, holding one above any other belief.
However, "So help me God" is not a legal requirement. It is tradition, and observing tradition in a few few words does not establish a religion, nor does it violate the rights of someone who can simply choose an "affirmation" instead of a sworn "oath" as described in the Constitution. We already have a constitutional provision prohibiting a religious test, and this isn't one.
Thank God for men like Jay Sekulow.
Couldn't agree more.
Cannot anyone find a way to put Newdow out of his misery?
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.