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?
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.