[vannrox]

Comments?

[Bigg Red]

Good post. Thanks for doing the research.

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later

[facedown]

vann ROCKS!

[Slyfox]

Maybe them earthquakes have loosened all them bolts and NUTS.

[Ciexyz]

I'm a financial contributor to Jay Sekulow's "American Center for Law and Justice", which accepts cases pro bono dealing with violations of religious freedom. I'm waiting for an email from his group on how they plan to fight this.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You could not find a more idiotic, incompetent and destructive group of individuals in a street gang.

[Reeses]

The 9th US Circus Court of Appeals is in one of San Francisco's premiere socialist neighborhoods. There are crack dealers, hookers, paroled sex offenders, beggars, crazy people walking around, the socialist prototype for future America. I suspect crack is falling into the soup in one of the nearby restaurants.

[tubebender]

BUMP

[alloysteel]

One must keep in mind, that the reasoning in law is supposed to be based in logic. If the line of logic is followed, with only one eye, any given point has some degree of relevance with any other point. By totally excluding all factors except those which prove your point, it is possible to argue that "freedom OF religion" eventually means "freedom FROM religion", and that any and all references to a supernatural Supreme Being is therefore religion.

Two lines of reasoning came together here. One is that the Pledge of Allegiance has now become a prayer, simply because the words, "under God", have been included. The other is that, because schools are an agency by extension of the Federal government, that reference to God must be expressly forbidden.

But a wholly different outcome is that since school children may no longer pledge allegiance, they cannot declare their loyality and fidelity to the principles that bind the United States into one nation.

Was it not bad enough that the World Trade Center was knocked down? Must the rest of America be made meaningless as well? The US Flag is what brought us together that day, and denying ANYBODY the right to declare their love of country (by denying the Pledge of Allegiance as a legitimate expression of that belief) is to surrender to the external forces who clearly do NOT love the flag.

[Metal4Ever]

You seem to make several times what I would consider the illogical conclusion that because a law is passed by the majority of the population or a particular belief is supported by the majority of the population, that that inherently trumps a legal interpretation of the Constitution.

I consider this to be at the very least a dubious assertion. Just because a law enjoys majority support doesn't make it inherently Constitutional. Badly written law is still badly written law whether 5% of the country supports it or 95% of the country supports it. Extrapolating from your argument one must conclude that Brown vs. Board Of Education was a mistake and Plessy vs. Fergeson should never have been overturned.

In this case from what I've read of the decision, I think the 9th Circuit is factually accurate in its reasoning, particularly if you take into account what Eisenhower said when he signed it.

Would you consider it a breach of the Establishment Clause if the Pledge used "under Allah" instead of "under God"? Seriously. If the answer is yes then you have to explain to me the difference between the two.

Anyone who complains that this decision only strengthens the hand of the Christianity haters or advances their cause needs to stop and think about that concept for a minute because they have just legitimized the 9th Circuit's argument that the Pledge in its current form is not religion neutral.

That said, I have to say that I am not in favor of this decision. Though I do believe the outcome to be correct, in all honesty this case wasn't worth the effort put into it. Getting that nit picky over the Establishment Clause is overkill in my book. The only thing it will do is get a bunch of people riled for no good reason. We all know the Supreme Court will reverse the decision.

I'm more or less agnostic but I have no problem with the Plegde in its current form. But it does violate the Establishment Clause. But I consider it to be a "harmless violation". No harm, no foul.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Bumping, for later read. Thanks for all the work!!!

[ppaul]

Petition to the President of the United States and Members of Congress

I speak as an American citizen. The recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled Unconstitutional is an attack on America by way of the legal system. We are indeed "One Nation Under God."

To declare that anyone who pledges allegiance to the Flag of our Country is breaking the law is to declare the President of the United States and every member of Congress to be law breakers.

It has become abundantly clear that the two judges that voted for this must be impeached and removed from office. Please use the authority that you have been invested with and immediately vote to impeach judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alfred Goodwin.

To sign the Petition, click HERE.

[CyberAnt]

"What's going on in California"

WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT LIBERAL IDIOT FOR A GOVERNOR!! WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?