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.

[PhiKapMom]

Ari also said that this only applies to States in the 9th Circuit -- not to any other States. Also went on to say how the name of God is used to open each Supreme Court session, the Congress, etc. Also talked about how the Arizona people burned out reacted to the mention of the word God more than anything.

[SpencerRoane]

"Anyhow, it will most likely be overturned en banc and the Supreme Court will deny cert (refuse to hear the case - leaving the last ruling in effect)."


No, I'm willing to bet the farm that the Supreme Court will grant the petition for cert. and reverse.

[Dick Bachert]

If the Supremes don't hurl this one back into their faces, we are doomed!
I guess we have to expect this level of madness from a court cited in America's very own Sodom.
Dick Bachert

[Mo1]

Finally! Bush does something kinda conservative!
I, for one, am overjoyed he did!

See he ain't that bad ..

[Dimensio]

Probably just a "resolution". I suspect that it, like many other knee-jerk resolutions of condemnation, will contain fundamental misunderstanding of the actual ruling (and that can apply regardless of your personal opinion of the ruling).

[aristeides]

Byrd is saying the judge (Goodwin, presumably) is no judge.

[Mo1]

What Channel are you watching???

[tpaine]

I'm one of JR's favorite whiners, - & he always gives me cheese.

And yep, he bannished me once, when I told CAL to go do it to herself. Now, Cal's gone, and I'm the fair haired boy. -- Go figure.

Or at least just go way.

[Howlin]

Thank you for saying it.

[PhiKapMom]

I was so glad to see Ari come right out with the President's statement!

[gdani]

No, I'm willing to bet the farm that the Supreme Court will grant the petition for cert. and reverse.

My apologies. That was written before I realized it was remanded back to District Court. No Supreme Court action coming (at least not yet).

[scalia_#1]

Pres Bush's reaction: This ruling is ridiculous.

A pre-emptive, four-word refutation for what we can expect will be a barrage of legal scholars on the shows tonight defending the indefensible and explaining the all-too-explainable. Politically, we can't fall into the trap of debating the merits of this decision. Debating is for convincing, and the vast majority of Americans will be with us on this -- they don't need convincing. And for good reason: the court's error speaks for itself. Instead, we must move past the decision and use it to push for conservative judicial appointments who won't treat the Constitution as an empty vase in which to pour their leftist poison.

[mhking]

Now to get on with the currency. How about "In at least one god some of us trust, and sorry if we weren't supposed to say that."

Feh.

This is tiresome. Sack it all - if we say "In God We Trust", first off it fits on the money. Secondly, and most comfortably, we can chuck the PC crowd out the window...

[Dimensio]

If the Supremes don't hurl this one back into their faces, we are doomed!

I guess we are doomed. The case was remanded and as such won't be going to the Supremes.

[mindprism.com]

I'll stick with the factual stuff.

Tell you what, if you find me a Constitutional lawyer who disagrees with this statement:

The rights of the individuals, and of the states are not enumerated in their entirety in the US Constitution, while the powers (fields of endeavor) given to the US government ARE enumerated in their entirety.

I'll give you $100.00.

[AppyPappy]

you just can't turn a jackass into anything but a jackass.

Hey! You can't talk about tp like that. Only I can talk about tp like that.

[aristeides]

Think I just heard it is a resolution. I think that means it will have no legal force.

[phasma proeliator]

I think you need to re-check your facts....

Or maybe Jim can correct us on how many times you've been sent to a "time-out"...

[AmishDude]

You are much more eriudite than I, so I will ask you. I know compulsary education is a state law. Is recitation of the pledge a state law? I know there was a law in '54 that added "under God" to the pledge, but did it include anything other than a recommendation that it be recited in schools?

Here is my point: I know that previous Supreme Courts have ruled the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the fact is that the first amendment does start with what George Will calls "the 5 most beautiful words in the English language":

Congress shall make no law . . .

It is very easy to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to state laws, and in fact state laws in the early 19th century bear that out.