[3AngelaD]

This is all very good, but it isn't how the Supreme Court works. If they received an e-mail from every person in the country, it would not change they way the court reaches decisions. We don't get a vote in the judicial branch, only in the legislative and executive branches.
But this is a blessing in disguise, a golden opportunity to 1) Smite the Dems and 2) has given the Supremes an opportunity to rule once and for all that God has a place in our society. The atheists (sorry you all out there, but this is it) can suck lemons. The Supremes will do their thing not because we innundate them with e-mails, but because conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court and their are Believers among our robed sisters and brothers.

[mewzilla]

The Supremes keep a finger to the wind of public opinion.

[dutchess]

Mr. Dutchess (an attorney) said that the decision was made by a 3 judge panel of a 7 member court (and the decision was NOT unanimous). The next step is for the "appellant" (or loser in this case) to file an appeal within 10 days. It's called an "en blanc" or request for reconsideration to go before the full seven member court. One would think that with all the criticism they might overturn the decision.

That being said, Mr. says that the 9th district is one of the worst for asinine decisions so the full court might let this one fly.

[dutchess]

Mr. Dutchess (an attorney) said that the decision was made by a 3 judge panel of a 7 member court (and the decision was NOT unanimous). The next step is for the "appellant" (or loser in this case) to file an appeal within 10 days. It's called an "en blanc" or request for reconsideration to go before the full seven member court. One would think that with all the criticism they might overturn the decision.

That being said, Mr. says that the 9th district is one of the worst for asinine decisions so the full court might let this one fly.

[Dimensio]

Well maybe we should move such matters to public opinion. Instead of having a court hear on Constitutional matters we open it up for a vote. If a majority think that the First Amendment doesn't mean that the government cannot establish Christianity as the "official" religion then so be it. We could open it up to criminal cases as well, put up the guilt or innocence of defendants to a public vote. We could even do it as often as we wanted until we got the verdict that we wanted since we could also vote to end that whole "no double jeopardy" nonsense.

[Jeff Head]

I know how the SCOTUS works ... but the judges are appointed and confirmed by politicians who are elected by the people.

If enough people raise cain on this ... it will change, sooner or later.

[anymouse]

Although I find this Apealate Judge's action abhorant to our national identity and pride, we will survive this, because we are "one nation under God, indevisable, with liberty for all."

All this judge is doing is illustrating that the Constitution works. That the checks and balances between the three branches of federal government allows for even extreme disagreement between the different branches, without undermining the power and respect of each branch. And when the Supreme Court overturns this "rediculous" (but legally binding) ruling of the Appealate Court, then that too will show the wisdom of our founding fathers in not instilling too much power even in lifetime appointed judges.

So like SCOTUS' ruling in the 2000 Presidential election, this painful and farcical ruling shows that a constitutional republic is far superior to other forms of government, where power corrupts. After all we have "a government of (the rule of) laws, not of men" - even dumb laws like this.

[Demidog]

God has a place in our society. Not endorsed in our government institutions. You're correct in that petitions won't make a whit of difference to Scalia, Thomas or the other Justices. But I suspect, since this particular Nixon appointee was citing Supreme Court law on the matter, that they probably won't overturn the 9th circuit and thus themselves.