U.S. To Challenge Pledge Ruling - Dispute Over Words 'Under God' Headed To Supreme Court

MSNBC News Service ^ | MSNBC

[webber]

U.S. To Challenge Pledge Ruling - Dispute Over Words 'Under God' Headed To Supreme Court

MSNBC NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Attorney General John Ashcroft on Friday announced that the Justice Department will appeal a lower court's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God." The announcement came shortly after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declined to reconsider the ruling.

"THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft said in a statement issued in Washington. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."

Ashcroft argued in the statement that for centuries the United States "has referenced God as we have expressed our patriotism and national identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national anthem, on our coins and in the Gettysburg Address."

In fact, "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session by saying, 'God save this honorable Court,'" he wrote.

    Ashcroft's statement was released within hours of the announcement by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it had rejected the Bush administration's request for a rehearing, which meant the controversial June 2002 ruling by a three-judge panel stands. The court also said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider.

COURT SAYS IT MUST IGNORE 'OUTCRY'

The court also said it would be "wrongheaded" to allow public outcry to influence court decisions.

"We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 46-page opinion.

"It is particularly important that we understand the nature of our obligations and the strength of our constitutional principles in times of national crisis," Reinhardt wrote. "It is then that our freedoms and our liberties are in the greatest peril."

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last year that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the term "under God" being recited during the saying of the pledge in public classrooms.

The court said that phrase in the pledge was an endorsement of God. The U.S. Constitution, the court said, forbade public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.

Congress and President Bush immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine Western states covered by the nation's largest appeals court. Critics have long assailed the court for what they say is a liberal bent out of step with the rest of the country.

DECISION STAYED - PENDING RESOLUTION

Public outcry over the decision prompted its chief author, Judge Alfred Goodwin, to call for a review by the full appeals court. He also stayed the ruling from going into effect until the case was resolved.

Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.

In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.

The case is Newdow v. Congress.

---

NBC News correspondent Pete Williams and The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

---

[Siobhan]

The 9th Circuit bozos need to be removed immediately.

[apackof2]

"THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT will spare no effort to preserve
the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft said in a statement issued in Washington.
"We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through
the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."

Lets Roll

[bannie]

What sounded impossible to Red Skelton...

[MamaB]

You are so right and these are the kind of people the nutty dems want on the courts.

[SierraWasp]

Guess we'll never find out the pro vs. con votes of the members of the 9th numbskulls. Actually, they are all cons, as far as I'm concerned.

[kitkat]

So what else did we expect from the Ninth Circuit Court? What we need to do now is to PRAY that this nation UNDER GOD is saved from an atheist who seeks to impose his minority opinion on the rest of us.

[VaBthang4]

See the Liberal tactic?

They rule....people scream bloody murder....they stay the decision....then try to slip it through later.

[eabinga]

Poor job editing the article, changing meaning in places...

[jwalsh07]

The ninth circuit has 18 Clinton appointed judges, 7 Carter appointed judges and a handful of token repub appointees. It is the most overturned court in the land and ha the dubious distinction of being overturned by SCOTUS 5 times in one month last year.

[concerned about politics]

The courts can't let a handful of special interest athiest control the country and rewrite the Constitution to the point where it suits them.
During the abortion debate, a poll showed 90% of Americans believe in a God. Even the leftist dirt worshipers have their God of the forests. The gays have their God of Sodomy. NOW has their Goddesses of ministration (or something like that), and the libertarians worship Beucannon ( or however you spell his name).
Our nation was born with religious freedom. We can't let a few immoral kooks ruin it for the Christians in this nation and still allow all those other thing worshippers to retain their "Gods" Of whatever. It's simply unconstitutional.

[Laverne]

Who are the three judges? Who appointed them? Can this be used in the continued debate about Estrada?

[jwalsh07]

18 should have read 8.

[farmfriend]

Actually, they are all cons, as far as I'm concerned.

Longing for a three strikes rule.

[madprof98]

I keep thinking that if people just knew that this is what the Dems want to see the Supreme Court itself look like, they'd surely stop voting for them. But, perhaps not . . .

[metesky]

Tempest in a teapot...

[jwalsh07]

Who are the three judges?

Justice Death, Justice Famine and Justice Plague.

Just kiddin.

[ScholarWarrior]

Duplicate post here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/854022/posts

[jwalsh07]

Tempest in a teapot...

The school kids in Oakland County are being forced NOT to recite the pledge while the ruling stands.

At the same time a couple of hundred thousand other American kids are getting ready to put it all on the line.

I'd say it's a bit more than a tempest when the state forbids its xitizens from pledging allegiance to their nation at time of war.

[BOBWADE]

I beleive that the Supremes themselves have some sort of prayer or statement referring to GOD at the begining of each court session. Should be interesting to see if they believe that they have been violating the constitution all these years.