Indoor Flag Pole Sets | Buy Anything On eBay | Vegas Hotel | Credit Card | Personal Loans
11th Circuit Denied Pledge of Allegiance Claims [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : 11th Circuit Denied Pledge of Allegiance Claims


oracle
07-01-2002, 08:08 PM
11th Circuit Denied Pledge of Allegiance Claims (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078923948)

Richmond Eustis
Fulton County Daily Report (http://www.dailyreportonline.com/)
07-01-2002


Years before he won his fight against the Pledge of Allegiance in the 9th Circuit, Michael A. Newdow lost a similar bid in Florida and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A split three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the words "under God" in the pledge violate the First Amendment's establishment clause prohibiting government endorsement of religion. In his decision, Senior Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote that under the establishment clause, reciting "under God" is equivalent to reciting "under Jesus," "under Vishnu," or "Under no God." Newdow v. U.S. Congress, No 00-16423 (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

"[T]he school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of those ideals," he wrote. The decision sparked denunciations of the 9th Circuit nationwide and sent elected officials of both major parties scrambling for cameras and microphones to recite the pledge and sing patriotic songs with lyrics mentioning a deity.

The 11th Circuit escaped what might have been a similar fate by affirming the decision by a U.S. District judge in Florida to dismiss Newdow's suit challenging the pledge in Broward County, Fla.

In 1998, Newdow, styling himself "Rev. Dr.," sued President Bill Clinton, Congress, the Broward County School District, and Florida's Congressional delegation to have "under God" removed from the pledge, and to bar the Broward County schools from reciting the pledge until the language was removed. The pledge's language, Newdow claimed, violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. At the time, Newdow was an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, which claims that "the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from the reason rather than mythology." That mythology includes "trust in any God."

Newdow said that were he to teach in Broward public schools or enroll his daughter there, they would be subjected to a daily government endorsement of theism. Broward's school board policy specifies that schools should conduct the pledge each morning, though the schools could substitute some other "thought-provoking program planned with discretion."

...


Click here to read more (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078923948)

DesertFox
07-01-2002, 08:17 PM
"[T]he school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of those ideals"

<h2>No shit, Sherlock</h2>

It's called inculcating patriotism. Try it sometime.

**DONOTDELETE**
07-02-2002, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>But Newdow might have had chances in at least three circuits. His appeals brief lists three addresses: one in Teaneck, N.J., one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and one in Sylmar, Calif.

"It certainly seems that he was seeking out the more liberal circuits -- except for the 11th," Batista said. "But of course everything has to come through Florida."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The character used his child as a pawn in such a frivolous lawsuit twice and he judge-shopped. It would appear that the "reason" that is the source of his "ethics" is as addled as are his ethics - had he used reason, the 9th Circuit Court would have been his starting point.

**DONOTDELETE**
07-02-2002, 04:59 PM
The only reason that the demented jerk went to California was to post this lawsuit. It was the only place that would uphold it's invalid validity! What does this tell you about our judicial system!?

Warlady
07-02-2002, 05:01 PM
Answer: That liberals suck.

DesertFox
07-02-2002, 05:13 PM
And liberal judges suck -- and swallow.

Warlady
07-02-2002, 05:22 PM
As long as they don't expect us to swallow their anti-American crap I don't care.

**DONOTDELETE**
07-02-2002, 06:11 PM
Well, this does decide one thing:

This has to go to the Supreme Court. We have a conflict between circuit courts of appeals.