Pledge Ban upheld ("no under God")

Fox News.com ^ | February 28, 2002 | FOX

[cicero's_son]

This is a tremendous opportunity for Republicans.

Whatever Miguel Estrada's imagined shortcomings are, we can be pretty sure he wouldn't be as bad as the 9th Circuit.

Hang this tire around the Democrats' neck and set it on fire.

[LowOiL]

Too bad conservatives don't get as fired up about SCOTUS judges as they do presidential elections. It shows in the crap conservatives allow to get office by not holding the same hissy fits dems do.

Courts are very very important to winning the constitution back to where it belongs.

[goodseedhomeschool]

HOMESCHOOL RULES!!! :)

[rwfromkansas]

The "wall of separation" was started by Mr. Black due to his anti-Catholic views. Furthermore, Justice Thomas has noted how "sectarian" has been used as a euphemism for keeping Catholics from having a say in govt.

Folks, there is no "wall of separation." It is a mythological product due to incorrect interpretations of the First Amendment and twisting Thomas Jefferson. It is due to anti-Catholic bigotry as well.

[goodseedhomeschool]

We have the clintonistas to thank for this garbage in the first place. One thing is for sure. In the 2004 elections, there will be no fuzzy grey lines in the election. REPUBLICANS=PATOITS, MORALITY AND GOODNESS
democrats=marxism, atheism, and all that is bad, ugly and nasty.
It should play for our benefit to be sure.

[jimt]

It is against the law to coerce or require any person to repeat those words and has been for quite some time. So do us both a favor and quit repeating the lie.

From an ABC news article:

"The 9th Circuit Court concluded that the Pledge of Allegiance does not fall in that category. "The text of the official pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God," the court wrote.

It also held that the Pledge was coercive, because it forced schoolchildren into an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

The article also states that stemming from a 1943 decision regarding Jehovas Witnesses, no one can be forced to say the pledge of allegiance.

So having told me I'm lying, I guess the 9th Circuit is "lying" too. Is that right?

Or could it be we just have different opinions?

[Eastbound]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Apparently the founders all agreed that the unalienable rights of mankind were endowed by God, the Supreme Being.

I think that I would rather have my rights coming from God than a clashing of atoms.

[qam1]

Mark my words, when the FULL gospel is preached in San Francisco by the Sons of God, they will either be on its knees asking God's forgiveness and mercy, or large portions of the city will be in the Pacific Ocean. Now your beginning to understand what Armageddon really is. Man's final offer to accept or reject Christ's Kingdom before He returns to rule and reign.

Translation: Worship me or I will kill you and your family & Friends in a most horrible way..

Yeah, What a wonderful god you got there!!!!!

[Prowler Fowler]

9th Circuit must be only using plastic to pay for anything, since taking this to the Liberal conclusion, U.S. Currency becomes unconstitutional with this ruling

[Mister Baredog]

That's right in fact the complaintant in this case has said that currency is his next target

[snopercod]

What does God's dictionary say about this?

[jwalsh07]

So having told me I'm lying, I guess the 9th Circuit is "lying" too. Is that right?

Coercing students to recite the pledge has been unconsitutional since Barnette.

The state of California does not coerce students into reciting the pledge. They can say it or not.

So yes, the ninth circuit is lying.

The Ninth Circuit also claims that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Are they lying there?

There opinion is that any recitation of a vouluntary pledge is unconstitutional because it "coerces" students by embarassing them. There is no consitutional right for students or anybody else not to be embarrassed. It is an affront to the first amendment rights of each and every other student who wishes to recite the pledge.

Parents who do not believe in God can simply instruct their kids not to use those words. Parents who do not believe in America can simply inform their children to remain silent.

Lie is a harsh word but it is to the point here. California does not have a law requiring students to recite the pledge.

In short, the Ninth Circuit lied about the individual not having a RTKABA, they are lying about students being coerced by the state to recite the pledge and they will lie about anything that furthers their moral relativist, anti-American agenda.

Some may call it disagreement, I call'em as I see'em.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD"--NOW STICK THAT UP YOUR BLACK ROBE!

[Eastbound]

"What does God's dictionary say about this?"

I sent Him an email and He hasn't answered yet. Wanna try? It's God@Creator.Org

[JackTom]

While discussing our outrage with this decision, it is interesting to notice that some reliably conservative mebers of the court (Kozinski, Trott, Rymer) voted against rehearing en banc.
The reason why they (and possibly some other judges) did that is because they realized that the case ends at the SCOTUS anyway, and refusing to rehear this case en banc actually speeds up the process.
We should remember that SCOTUS has much broader authority and could use this case to review legal interpretation of the Ist Ammendment.
We may very well be better off with the 9th Circuit deciding not to mess up with this case any longer.

[aristeides]

I think it just became much harder for RAT senators to block the confirmation of Miguel Estrada.

[aristeides]

Wasn't Dr. Newdow supposed to appear at Harvard Law School yesterday? Anybody know what he had to say?

[snopercod]

Good answer. Tip 0'the hat to you.