- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|The Gift That Keeps On Giving|
Just when the press was losing interest in New Orleans--you know, at about the same time as it was becoming clear who should be getting the blame--, and the Roberts hearings were losing their luster--at about the same time as it was clear Roberts was going to not only be easily confirmed, but was going to habitually make the Dems look stupid--and we were starting to wonder what the press was going to turn to next . . .
Along comes Michael Newdow.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the law requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional and said he was ready to issue an injunction to three California school districts to halt the daily reciting of the pledge.
Terming the case "a cause celebre in the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation," U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to "one nation under God" violates children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Ah, but wait . . . here's the best part of Judge Karlton's ruling:
In his ruling, which he acknowledged will "satisfy no one involved" in the debate about the role of religion in public life, Karlton said he was bound by precedent from the appeals court, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, . . .
So, um . . .I know I'm just a dumb non-lawyer guy here, but . . . It would seem that if the Supremes dismissed the case (granted, on procedural grounds), then it can no longer be considered precedential material. Or is it just me?
By the way, if you think it doesn't really matter if Judge Roberts gets confirmed, or whether the President picks a strong conservative for the next opening, think again. Only a Court able to make a clear, concise statement on the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause can put this nonsense to rest, once and for all.