9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[LarryLied]

There is also a connection between the man who was running Poland during the school and library book purges and many of those in the United States who run to the courts in an attempt to censor religious speech.

[bluecollarman]

Look at this Auction...HERE

[MJY1288]

OH Really, Last week you were quoting Karl Marx, this week your quoting Arthur Koestler (another Communist), So I am honored to be called a finatic by you, because I'm definately on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to people I would quote,

Have a nice evening

BTW, Thanks for the insight

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"...I think the main thing is because the Government takes the funds - under threat of gunfire - to send your kids to such schools whether you send your kids there or not...."

Yep.

And what are we prepared to do?

Write a sternly worded e-mail, no doubt.

...We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor....

(Those were the days......)

[mhking]

Furthermore, this pledge is NOT just a pledge to the flag and to the republic, as you assert, but also, as it currently stands, to an unknown entity that not everyone believes exists, nor does every parent want their children indoctrinated in such a belief.

That is incorrect - contrary to popular belief, the pledge is not a pledge to God. The phrase "under God" is a phrase that describes the nation.

This is not an issue of indoctrination. This is a matter of an individual exerting his will on the 95% of the individuals in this country who not only believe in the existance of God in some form, but those same persons who believe that God or some other higher being is responsible for our being here.

You cannot penalize 95% of Americans because one father and two judges are mind-numbed idiots...

[betty boop]

p.s.: What remand? Looks like a petition for en banc consideration is pending. If the rest of the Ninth is as nutz as these two majority votes (out of three votes total, and I've heard the dissenting judge wrote a penetrating opinion), the Supremes would be getting involved sooner or later. Something to look forward to.

Meanwhile it's interesting, the public stink this decision has raised. Last I checked, 77 percent of the CNN poll respondents seem to think the Gang of Two got it wrong, that indeed this is "junk justice."

[justshe]

It is my understanding that this court governs 8 or 9 western states. It is a federal court with life-time appointed judges (by the President).

Californians had NOTHING to do with this decision other than the the man who brought the orignial lawsuit.

[tutstar]

Oh please tell me there is a link to this statement. Have some atheists I'd love to email the link to.

[tpaine]

Hey you are a 'fan' aren't you? You remember all my quotes?

But -- Marx? In what context? - Can you let me know before you scuttle away?

[MJY1288]

You were just giving a little insight supporting your position on a thread you were polluting, simular to this one, debating the constitution.

[Jeff Head]

SET ASIDE THE DECISION
OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT

FR Thread on the same

[tpaine]

Yep, as I figured. Unsupported BS.

[mhking]

Here's what the moron looks like.

[Dimensio]

I'm pretty sure that the news stories that commented on his comment also put in the context of his laughing about it as to indicate that he was joking.

[MJY1288]

LOL, It's you that get your insight from Communist and post it here for all of us to see, I guess since I didn't go back and find last weeks post by you, I will take it back, But maybe you can explain why you would quote communist propaganda from Arthur Koestler to support your position on THIS thread?

[Trueblackman]

If this does not make a conservative's blood boil than I don't know what it will take. Some of you saw my press release on the stonewalling by Democrats for President Bush's Nominees and they only want more judges like this nutcase in out federal courts. We need to march on the polls in Novermber and because the dems signed on in Congress should not be cover.

[MJY1288]

Maybe I should get Dane and Reagan Man who seem to enjoy debating with you to see if I can jog their memory?

[Diamond]

Who would Mr. Story be?

Story, Joseph, 1779–1845, American jurist, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (1811–45), b. Marblehead, Mass. Admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1801, he practiced law in Salem and was several times elected to the Massachusetts legislature. He served briefly in the U.S. Congress in 1808–9. Story's legal scholarship quickly earned him great prominence, and in 1811 (at the age of 32) he was appointed by President Madison to the U.S. Supreme Court, the youngest person ever to hold that position. In the early period of his judicial tenure, as part of his duties on the Supreme Court, he was also a circuit justice in New England. His decisions helped frame U.S. admiralty and prize law. Story's judicial views nearly always agreed with those of John Marshall; this was not the case with Marshall's successor, Roger B. Taney. One of the most important opinions Story wrote for the Supreme Court was Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816); it established the power of the federal court to review issues of constitutional law raised in state cases. Story expressed his strong antislavery sentiments in several judgments that ordered the repatriation to Africa of blacks brought into U.S. ports by slavers. In 1829, Story became the first Dane professor of law at Harvard. For the remainder of his life he sat on the Supreme Court and taught at Harvard. In connection with his teaching, Story wrote many legal works, systematic summaries of bodies of case law (mostly British), so treated as to elucidate the legal and philosophical bases. A nationalist in principle, he attempted to provide a justification for rational and uniform legal principles, thereby not privileging the legal standards practiced in any region. Story's texts must be ranked with James Kent's Commentaries on the American Law as formative influences on American jurisprudence and legal education. They include commentaries on bailments (1832), the U.S. Constitution (3 vol., 1833), conflict of laws (1834), equity jurisprudence (2 vol., 1836), equity pleading (1838), agency (1839), partnership (1841), bills of exchange (1843), and promissory notes (1845). All his books appeared in several editions; that on equity jurisprudence (14th ed. 1918) perhaps retained its utility longest.

Cordially,

[rwfromkansas]

The teacher has a right to not lead the pledge. A student would then take over if he wanted to.

[BMCDA]

Those people are stupid.

Aw c'mon, you can't say that. You know that this can get you banned.
However, saying someone has a shrivelled up, bone-dry raisin of a heart seems OK though.