'Under God' Stays In Pledge

Bravo!!!!!!!!

 

AWESOME!!!!!

 

Hm. The Supremes dodged the bullet this time. No standing to sue. I'm not at all sure that I agree with the reasoning but the Court decided to hang its hat on standing and that is that.

This is perfectly proper constitutional procedure; don't decide a constitutional question unless you're absolutely FORCED to.

The plaintiff must be quite a guy. Law and medical degrees AND an oral argument in the Supreme Court! Amazing!

Anyway, this is NOT a ruling on the merits; the Supremes avoided deciding whether the "under God" phrase violates the separation of Church and State; the issue remains undecided. This time.

 

I'm just glad that jerk-off Newdow lost.

 

AMEN to that!!

Rich Hartel

 

Personally I could care less whether it was on the pledge or not. I only support a voluntary pledge anyway and never swear on a bible (even in court).

As usual the Supreme Court wimped out and merely stated that it was OK to leave "one nation under god" in the pledge. If we weren't a nation whose leaders are wimp boys (and girls), they would simply rule one way or the other about the separation of church and state and what it really means in our constitution. Instead they ruled on how much custody the man has of his daughter - something this is really totally unrelated to the matter at hand. Wimpy wimpy wimpy. I will be glad when Renquist finally retires.

 

The ruling was that he did not have a standing to sue on, they made no ruling on the phrase. There is a big difference. See Nosborne's post and the article.

The ruling was:

 

OK for now. Nosborne's right: standing, not merits. Glad Newdow (ass) lost. Phrase relic of McCarthyism. Wouldn't have added it. Wouldn't remove it now. Inspiring at best. Pointless at worst. Rather see pledge to Constitution anyway. Writing old-time Timespeak tiring. I quit.

 

Well, someone should point out that the Pledge of Allegiance was concocted by a socialist Minister with the purpose of pushing a socialist agenda.

 

Well, someone should point out that the Pledge of Allegiance was concocted by a socialist Minister with the purpose of pushing a socialist agenda.

I'm not the greatest fan of LewRockwell.com but this tells the story: Pledge.

 

Timespeak

Uncle,

TIMESPEAK!!

I'd forgotten all about that relic of the dead unlamented past!

Who created it? Was it Robert Luce? Colonel McCormick? Tallulah Bankhead, even? It wasn't Hemingway himself; his sentences were brief but always complete.

I object to pledging allegence to ANYTHING unread or un examined but, since I am (very temporarily) in uniform even as I write this, I DO owe obedience to the government of the United States of America, however constituted.

 

My very vague recollection is that Henry Luce and Britton Hadden invented it together. It certainly goes back to the very earliest days of "Time", so it may well have begun before, as it must to all men, death came to Britton Hadden.

 

I think it was Luce (and his writers). I'm no expert, but didn't "timespeak" become (or was it always?) a pejorative term, partly because of the scathing piece on Luce in the New Yorker in the 1930's?

Luce's timespeak was ridiculed as in "Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind."

and

". . . Certainly to be taken with seriousness is Luce at thirty-eight, his fellowman already informed up to his ears, his future plans impossible to contemplate. Where it all will end, knows God!"

The next John Bear summer challenge: the best timespeak post about whatever...

 

Pledge

I don't think it was a battle anyone (including a majority of the Supremes) wanted this year or in the near future. Newdows lack of standing in the case was discussed when it was argued and many expected them to toss the case on that basis.

Apparently there is another couple in the Elk Grove (near Sacramento) area comtemplating filing suite against the same school district. There could also be another suit out there that will come up through another circuit. The issue is not going to die.

Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas have shown their hands and Scalia had to recuse himself because of his statements. Kennedy could be the swing vote if it comes back to them, and many expect him to vote with the Rehnquist side.

As Justice Brennan used to say, the most important rule in the Supreme Court is the Rule of 5 - it takes five votes to win (if there are no vacancies or recusals).

 

My take: Regardless of how you or I personally feel on the subject, without a doubt, "under God" violates the Constititution's separation of Church and State.

Did I think that this case was going anywhere? Nope. Pretty much the non-starter of all non-starters. Certainly not with this Supreme Court.

And, as others have said, why decide something that you don't have to decide?



Tom Nixon

 

No.

The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

The press out here in California has been saying that the Supreme Court avoided deciding the case and dismissed the complaint "on a technicality". I wish they wouldn't say this.

Standing is NOT a "technicality". It is a fundamental principal of virtually every system of law.

Access to the Courts is a fundamental human right and provision of a Court system is an attribute of sovereignty. Anyone can sue anyone, in other words. The doctrine of standing serves to restrict this otherwise open access to those who can show that they personally have suffered or will suffer genuine harm from the defendant's acts.

Now, who has standing in this case depended on who had legal custody of the child. Through LONG tradition, the federal courts have deferred to the state courts to define domestic relations rights and obligations. Once the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing as a matter of STATE law, it had no choice but to dismiss.

End of rant.

 

I agree with our resident pundit's interpretation of the Supreme Court’s “un-decision, indecision, or decision”. I am also happy that stays.

 

Hooahh! (it's an Army thing.)

"Wise men still seek HIM."