Let me check ...
Judge Goodwin
Yep that would be the phone Number
> Hey Howlin .. what the number for Congress???
Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
[Of course, they've got an "out" here: They may wish to believe that the restraint pertains only to Congress, not to the Judiciary. But that would make hash of the entire Bill of Rights....]
Of course, the decision will certainly be appealed. (Well, I hope so at least....) But I'm beginning to wonder what the Supremes would do. In some of their recent decisions, the justices seem to have elucidated a theory that the courts should take into effect changes in public sentiment in making their rulings. As in "increasingly the public dislikes the death penalty." Therefore, the justices must accommodate death-penalty law to "changing popular sentiments" as they interpret them.
But this is nutz. What does a "rule of law" mean under a set of circumstances like that? And doesn't this "legal theory" moot Article V of the Constitution? If the public "doesn't like something," it should seek to amend the Constitution -- vox populi -- not permit judges to substitute their own judgment about "what the people want." Usually all a judge will do is insert what it is he wants into the law, then say he's "speaking for the (hypothetical) people." Hey, we've got legislators to do that for us. But, unlike judges, they are accountable directly to us, and we can remove them from office if we don't like what they do.
The courts -- especially the SCOTUS -- have only one job: To apply existing constitutional law, not make up new constitutional law. What we have here is yet another case of judicial tyranny. JMHO FWIW. Thanks for the "bad news," Recovering_Democrat. best, bb.
Hell, this moronic doctor would prevent anyone from saying that within a courtroom, if he had his way...
I think you have a firm grasp on their real intentions.
If you are going to play in this league, better get some padding in your glove.
It was remanded back to lower court. No appeal. No supremes
Carolyn
Let me check ...
Yep that would be the phone Number
> Hey Howlin .. what the number for Congress???
I believe religious persecution is why they came over on the Mayflower but they obviously wasted their time.
This is religious persecution and denying rights to all children and their parents. What happened to civics and pride in country? This makes an argument for school choice. Ashamed the guy was from Broward County, FL and moved to San Fran. At least he left Florida. I'd hate for him to take the Pledge away from us, the jerk. I will be phoning all Florida representatives, pubbies and dems. I THINK THAT JUDGE GOODWIN MUST BE ON IN YEARS IF NIXON APPOINTED HIM. Nothing against seniors, I'll be one eventually, but maybe he should retire. J. Goodwin was parsing words faster than Martha Stewart can make a salad.
(in case it hasn't been posted before)
From a google search:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/2882530p-3704157c.html
Atheist loses bid to halt Bush's faith references
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, May 25, 2002
A Sacramento atheist's legal attempt to make President Bush stop mixing politics and his Christian faith has been tossed out of federal court.U. S. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows recommended in March that the lawsuit be dismissed, finding that the courts have no authority to restrain a president from acting in a particular fashion. U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton adopted the finding and recommendation this week.
Dr. Michael A. Newdow, an emergency room physician with a law degree who is acting as his own attorney, could not be reached for comment Friday. However, he vowed last year to appeal a related ruling. He built his lawsuit against Bush around a prayer delivered at the 2000 inauguration by the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, that was based on Christian beliefs and referenced "the Lord Jesus Christ." Newdow, 49, complained that permitting any prayer at a presidential inauguration violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. And, he said, Graham's references to Christian figures and concepts "further excluded theistic non-Christians" and "showed a preference for a particular religious belief." The prayer made him feel like an "outsider," he added. He did not seek monetary damages but asked the court to enjoin Bush from drawing Christianity into his duties in the future.
Initially, Hollows found that prayers at inaugurals are historical, commonplace and not constitutionally offensive. At the magistrate's recommendation, Karlton dismissed that part of the complaint. However, Hollows and Karlton reserved judgment on the prayer-specific issue until both sides could fully brief it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin Sudhoff Door argued that courts lack authority to meddle in the internal affairs of other government branches. She cited an 1866 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that neither the legislative nor executive branches can be restrained by the judicial branch.
The magistrate agreed with Door. Moreover, he said, Newdow lacks standing "because of the speculative and impractical nature of the relief sought." It is impossible to foresee the identity of future inaugural speakers and the nature of their remarks, Hollows noted. In a last-ditch effort to salvage the suit, Newdow sought to add as a defendant Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the congressional committee in charge of the 2000 inaugural. At a hearing before the magistrate, Newdow suggested the committee could be ordered to ban clergy from the guest list or not let them speak. Hollows nixed that idea as "clearly an invalid order from a First Amendment standpoint."
It's been litigated. It lost.
I do believe that it indeed was!
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
415-556-9800
If you are an atheist who does good in life and doesn't attack those who belive in G_D, then I have no beef with you.
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.