Anti-Pledge Atheist Wants to Muzzle Justice Scalia

NewsMax.com ^ | 9/11/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Michael Newdow, the atheist who wants the courts to ban the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, is trying to bar U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from having a say.

Newdow’s court filing maintains that Scalia’s public remarks on religion disqualify him. The high court will soon decide whether to hear the case.

"Atheist Michael Newdow is not satisfied to censor the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now he wants to censor Justice Scalia," stated William Donohue, president of Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

"While the case before the court is a non-sectarian one, the attack on Justice Scalia smacks of anti-Catholicism.

"A disturbing trend is under way to remove practicing Catholics from the judiciary. Over the summer, U.S. Senators on the Judiciary Committee sought to employ a de facto religious test against circuit-court hopeful Bill Pryor. Then we had the spectacle last week of Cleveland attorney Jay Milano contending that no Catholic judge should be allowed to sit on a case he is bringing against the Catholic Church. Now we have Newdow trying to silence Justice Scalia for expressing his Catholic views on religion.

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t in office a few months before she gave an impassioned address on women’s rights at Columbia Law School. Twenty months into her tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court the Washington Post wrote a lengthy front-page story on how vocal she is about her convictions. But no one then, or now, has ever said she is unfit to hear cases that touch on sex or sexuality. If such a rule were operative, then she would have been denied the chance to rule on the recent sodomy decision: at an ACLU board meeting in 1975, she addressed the ACLU’s policy on homosexuality by arguing against laws that criminalize sex between adults and minors! Statutory rape laws, she said, were suspect.

"Ginsburg is safe because her critics are not despotic. Pryor, Cleveland Catholic judges and Scalia are not because their critics are," Donohue concluded.

Newdow, you might recall, at first claimed he wanted to ban "under God" out of concern for his daughter. Then the girl and her mother revealed she was no atheist and he was trying to exploit her, and he admitted suing only because he is "an atheist and this offends" him.

[homeschool mama]

Newdow is a nutjob who used his daughter to press his personal agenda. The daughter and her mother are Christians and this burns Newdow up.

[Prodigal Son]

Newdow’s court filing maintains that Scalia’s public remarks on religion disqualify him.

Everybody sees the ironyy here I'm sure. This is exactly the thing the lefties do in the Senate right now. They try to force a judge to take a position on a hot issue so they can throw it in his face later on.

It seems absurd to even have to point it out- but there might be lefties reading this so for the benefit of them- the underlying presumption in this case is Scalia should have always kept his personal beliefs to himself. Just like the US Justices that get nominated but for which the liberal Senators give them so much grief. You can't have it both ways. Either you support the Justice keeping his mouth shut or not.

[DuncanWaring]

From Article VI of the US Constitution:

" ... and all ... judicial Officers, ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ..."

[MineralMan]

This is just silly. Supreme Court justices have as much right to say what they believe as any of the rest of us. I might disagree with what Scalia has to say, being an atheist, but he has the right to say whatever he wants.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Newdow’s court filing maintains that Scalia’s public remarks on religion disqualify him. The high court will soon decide whether to hear the case.

Anyone want to wager how Scalia will see this issue? Do you think he will say that Newdow's case has merit, and the the USSC should hear arguments? :)

[jae471]

Anyone want to wager how Scalia will see this issue? Do you think he will say that Newdow's case has merit, and the the USSC should hear arguments? :)

The case has no merit, so I doubt the court will hear it. But I would love to see Scalia write the majority opinion if they did.

[MineralMan]

"But I just don't see what the meltdown people have with the friggin Pledge. Fist of all "Under God" is fifty years old, not 250. Its not some historical national legacy. Second, I pledge Allegiance to the Republic not the flag. Idolatry doesn't work in government either."

I don't either. I'm old enough to have learned the pledge before "under God" was added in 1954. I still say it the way I learned it. For me the key words are "and to the Republic for which it stands." The flag is just the symbol of that Republic.

Actually, I predict that the SCOTUS will uphold the decision of the 9th Circuit. The arguments are just too strong there, and there are too many patriotic US citizens who cannot add "under God" to the Pledge in good conscience. These include Jehovah's Witnesses, many Seventh Day Adventists, along with every Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, atheist, etc. who does not worship the Judeo-Christian deity or any deity at all.

The Pledge, in my opinion, needs to be one that _every_ American can say wholeheartely. It used to be that, and I still say it the way I learned it in grammar school.

I got called a traitor the other day for saying it that way.

[SuziQ]

Newdow’s court filing maintains that Scalia’s public remarks on religion disqualify him.

Newdow vs Scalia; a Celebrity Death Match. Anybody wanna take bets on who's gonna win this one? I'm going with the Italian guy, and not only cause he has the same last name as my paternal grandmother!

What an asolute maroon Newdow is!

[MattGarrett]

[ROLLING EYES]

[Sender]

Irony indeed. If Scalia cannot consider a case because he is known to have a Christian view, then Newdow should not be able to argue either since he is known to have an atheist view.

The liberals just can't handle a two-edged sword; they claim to want neutral, impartial judges who have no opinions on any subject, but if the judge is vehemently atheist, pro-abortion or anti-US then they consider that impartial too. It doesn't work that way. Everyone has an opinion, judges are expected to defer their personal opinions to the law. Liberals expect them to legislate from the bench...as long as they're twisted and bent the right way.

[MineralMan]

"you got called a traitor for saying the Pledge the way it was written??????

I don't want to say what I want to say out of respect for the board, but damn..."

It happened. I was at a meeting where the Pledge was recited at the beginning of the meeting. I said it, as I always do, omitting the "under God" phrase. Right after the Pledge, a guy next to me called me an F-ing traitor. I didn't engage him, since it would have disrupted the meeting.

What I would have said was that, as an atheist, saying those words would make my reciting of the pledge a lie. I cannot pledge anything calling on the name of a deity I don't believe exists.

I am not a traitor, by any means. I served my country in the military during the Vietnam war. I stand ready to defend the Constitution at all times.

But, I will not pledge anything in the name of any deity. That is my right, under the 1st Amendment. I don't mind if someone else does, but to be labeled a traitor for following my conscience in that way is obscene.

I say the Pledge as I learned it in Kindergarten in 1945, and will always do so, with pride in my nation.

[cavtrooper21]

You have far more self control that I do.
Good for you. I would have left him puking up a lung...

[risk]

I am not a traitor, by any means. I served my country in the military during the Vietnam war. I stand ready to defend the Constitution at all times.

Thank you. You're a real patriot, unlike the ones who pretend to be under the guises of piety, all the while trying to subvert true freedom of conscience by denying the rational basis for our laws, and placing false authorities above our Constitution.

[nickcarraway]

Where in the Constitution does it say Michael Newdow dictatorial power?

[pray4liberty]

Michael Newdow, the atheist who wants the courts to ban the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, is trying to bar U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from having a say.

Seems Michael Newdow forgot this is a free country and he is not Supreme Dictator of All.