Posted on 06/27/2002 6:10:25 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Wednesday's ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, has sparked widespread outrage. Average Americans are upset. Republican politicians are upset. Democrat politicians are upset. And Senator Robert Byrd has urged the Senate to do something to throw "back in the face of this stupid judge."
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was faced with a lawsuit by an atheist father who was upset with the daily recitation of the Pledge in his daughter's school. He wasn't upset about her having to recite it, and thanks to a war-era Supreme Court decision, she didn't have to. He sued because she watched and listened while her classmates -- who had no objections to the Pledge of Allegiance -- recited the words "one nation, under God."
It's a truly outrageous ruling. Outrageous, but not a complete surprise. After all, this is the sort of thing you get from activist judges.
The Ninth Circuit is justly known as the most judicially activist court in the nation, and it has earned a fair amount of criticism for its actions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist commented a few years ago that "some panels of the Ninth Circuit have a hard time saying no to any litigant with a hard-luck story," and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once felt compelled to remind its members that in litigation, "courts characteristically pause to ask: is this conflict really necessary?"
During the Supreme Court's 1997-1998 term, 28 of the Court's 80 cases were appeals from the Ninth Circuit. Twenty-seven of those 28 Ninth Circuit decisions were reversed - 17 of them unanimously. The year before, the Court reversed 73 percent of the Ninth Circuit cases it took.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the two judges who voted to rule the Pledge unconstitutional, makes no secret of his judicial philosophy.
Writing for the majority in Compassion in Dying v. Washington, Reinhardt declared in -- reference to Constitutional interpretation -- that "we must strive to resist the natural judicial impulse to limit our vision to that which can plainly be observed on the face of the document before us."
Is it really so shocking that judicial activists will come up with incredible ways to twist what the Constitution actually says? I wonder what this panel would have ruled if the school had required that the Declaration of Independence be read aloud every morning? Is reading that hallowed document, with its references to "nature's God" and a "Creator" who endows us with unalienable rights, unconstitutional as well?
The lesson that Americans should take from this is that we need judges who are not merely fair and qualified. We need judges who will follow the law, not their own ideas of what the law would be if they had free rein to rewrite it.
We're facing a vacancy crisis in the judiciary today. Eighty-nine seats are vacant with 49 nominees waiting to fill them. Some of them have been waiting more than a year, and some of them -- like Dennis Shedd, whose hearing is scheduled for this afternoon - are under attack because they were appointed by a President who believes that "the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench."
As we hope that this decision is reversed, either by the Ninth Circuit en banc or the Supreme Court, we should also hope that those Senators who place more weight on a nominee's personal views than his willingness to set them aside will wake up and get their priorities straight.
In the meantime, God bless America.
(John Nowacki is Director of Legal Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address
IMPEACH THE RASCALS! ROUTE THE VIPERS OUT!
Right down the crapper...and it has been for 50 years!
Ever since the 1925 Scopes "monkey case," the ACLU's had its dirty little fingers in almost every attack against what it perceives as religious.
The Pledge is meant to be a patriotic affirmation that all Americans can share. Where in the Constitution is there any recognition of the idea that the Nation is subordinate to a deity? If anything, it affirms that the Constitution is supreme to anything in this nation.
If a person or group feels that the Nation is subordinate to God, that is their right and privilege. But it is a religious viewpoint, not a patriotic one.
Why so many insist on mixing religion with patriotism astounds me. In this time of crisis we need to be unified, not divided.
-Eric
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.