These days everything is political and a federal judge’s ruling that reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional will most certainly mean one thing: it’ll further boost to the almost certain confirmation of John Roberts as Supreme Court Justice.
It puts into focus the whole idea of core values of judges — and that’ll solidify Roberts’ support. In this case, there will be two reasons why that’ll happen ASAP (a)this ruling goes after the pledge in general and (b)the atheist who brought the lawsuit has tried (and failed) before and has become a kind of poster-boy for the kind of “assertive” atheist who wants to impose his views on the whole society as much as social conservatives want to impose theirs:
A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words “under God” was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court.
“All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis,” Newdow told The Associated Press.
“…as it was before…”?
Where have we heard this kind of argument before?
It’s sort of like the folks who want to dump or downplay evolution in schools and put it the way it “was before.” There are some parallels (although Newdow and today’s more accessible “intelligent design” advocates would insist there are none). Bottom line: the pledge as it is, is now part of American culture (as is evolution in schools). MORE
“Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, ‘We are one nation that denies God exists,'” Newdow said.
“I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, ‘Oh, what harm is that.’ They’d be furious. And that’s exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn’t.”
That’s a real nice, lawyerly argument except that few except Newdow feel the Pledge as it exists is somehow dangerous. MORE:
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs’ children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux
impose theirs.
Indeed: this will give impetus to Robert’s almost certain confirmation. It’ll be interesting to see if it also creates the kind of climate nationally where President George Bush feels it’s a lot easier to opt for a more conservative replacement for Sandra O’Connor — one who can be sold as being ready to staunchly defend longtime values and traditions. If Bush was balking about naming a “red meat” conservative before, Newdow is helping clear the path for him to opt for a strict conservative due to the backlash he is about to create.
Outlook: the Supreme Court (no matter who is on it) will squash this case like a political cockroach.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF OTHER VOICES (due to time constraints we can’t do the quotes so read them yasself!):
InstaPundit
Citizen Smash
Donklephant
The Political Teen
Crooks And Liars
Bloggedygook
Dave Pell (who has an interesting prediction).
Mark In Mexico
Michelle Malkin
Peking Duck
Catholic Conservative
Mahablog
Eugene Volokh
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.