Why the Supremes will uphold use of The Pledge

[Paragon]

Logistics -- if you remove "under God" from The Pledge, you have to remove God from money, state buildings, constitutions, etc. etc.

Too much of a headache, regardless of its obvious endorsement of religion. Let the fundies have their little (very little) victory here - we certainly don't need the Repukes trying to use it as a wedge issue.

[Paragon]

1. shameless kick

C'mon, I thought at least posting the pic of the furniture polish was funny.

[BlueJazz]

3. The Pledge is/was funny

.

[cavebat2000]

2. !!!!

Your saying forget whats right.. lets just do whats easiest!? Are you kidding me? It would have been easier to not allow african americans to vote... but was it right!?

No offense man but cmon.

[Paragon]

5. No...

I'm saying that the SUPREMES will "do what's easiest". Personally, I'd love to see the ruling stand, which it will if there's a 4-4 tie, now that Scalia has recused himself.

[peterh]

13. If there is a 4 to 4 tie….

Would the decision from the 9th automatically stand or would it be thrown back to the full panel of the 9th for reconsideration? From the linked item, Judge Goodwin feels that the possibility of it coming back exists.


<http://bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far_id%5E3D11995.htm>

[KFC]

4. I think Diana Ross is a druggie or something

She flipped out in public a few years ago. I really don't care what she or her backup singers think.

[BlueJazz]

7. Digiorno makes some mighty fine Supremes also.

.

[wuushew]

6. I disagree

All those other establishment of religions have to do with things that the adult public deals with on a day to day basis.

The crux of the pledge argument is that government is brainwashing children and or creating a second class environment for children.

The only way this case can be thrown out is if the father's claim for custody of his child is questioned. Then his personal link to the nature of the case can be undermined.

[HFishbine]

8. You miss the crucial distinction

The pledge is a compelled utterance, far different from the other things you cite and legally distinguishable.

[Jacobin]

9. bingo

[skip fox]

10. I fear the backlash if they rule favorably on removal.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to be for it, but, Jesus, can you imagine Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, the boon to Fox &c, &c. We might lose far too many people to ever win back House or Senate, much less the Presidency.

[Cat Atomic]

11. They'll uphold it because this is the sort of stupid, symbolic

shit that they give to fundamentalists to keep them voting Republican. Ultimately this issue doesn't mean crap.

[sybylla]

12. I think you're missing the point of the ruling

They will only decide if it is unconsititutional to force children in school to say the pledge because of the "under god" part. It doesn't make "under god" unconstitutional and therefor it can remain in the pledge, on money and everywhere else until someone challenges it's presence there.

And no, I will not let the fundies have their victory. The rights of everyone in this country should be upheld, not just those of the majority. If Dems can't figure out how to make a decent argument for that they don't deserve the office.

edited for clarity.

[pandatimothy]

15. Is this a Dem versus Repuke issue?

I'm sure you can find plenty of Dems-including me- who want "God" to stay in the pledge.

Visit West Virginia sometime or Tennessee.

[LizW]

16. I may be wrong, but

I think this case is specifically a challenge to the 1954 addition of the "under God" phrase.

The Court already ruled that no one, including school children, can be compelled to say the pledge. This was even before the "under God" phrase was added.

The child in this case doesn't say the pledge, but the 9th Circuit held that even having to witness a teacher-led recitation of the pledge containing the words "under God" impermissibly gives the impression that the state endorses religion.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that. I've only read the decidsion once.

[Leanmc]

14. Splitting the difference

The Supremes can rule that continuing to say the Pledge is unconstitutional, that putting up new stuff with under god is unconstitutional, but also rule that old "under god" stuff that's relatively permanant can stay just as a historical relic. Think about when segregation was ruled unconstitutional, they allowed it to continue for more than a *decade* after Brown v Topeka due to logistics.

[msmcghee]

17. It's not important?

What if it said, "one nation under white males . . ,

. . which is really what the framers had in mind at the time and would therefore be a more accurate historic refence?

Either we have a nation where forcing schoolkids to mouth whatever massages the sentiments of the majority - or we have a nation of "freedom and justice for all".

You can't have it both ways.

[usregimechange]

18. Big Difference

There are distinct differences between the current national motto and the modified Pledge. The 9th Circuit noted that the "most important distinction is that school children are not coerced into reciting or otherwise actively led to participating in an endorsement of the markings on the money in circulation." In other words, children are not made to publicly display what they do or do not believe. Conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist noted similar distinctions in a different case:

"It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning the obliteration of the national motto, "In God We Trust" from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed to the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the national motto" (Rehnquist, J., dissenting, Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 722, 1977).

When a child refuses to say the Pledge he or she has to cope with social stigma or ostracism because the government has legitimized the already pervasive prejudice against nontheists. That is not a constitutionally acceptable role of government. When the same child carries a dollar in his backpack and gives it to his teacher for milk money he is not put in the position of having to publicly protest or participate in an activity for which he does not believe. His parents do not have to choose between putting the child in the position of being harmed socially and giving up their sole right to direct the religious beliefs of their children.

That being said, the government did change the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" which is Latin for "One from many" to "In God We Trust" in 1956. The original motto "E Pluribus Unum" was first conceived of by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson and was our motto through the Great Depression and two world wars.

Many of us do feel that the phrase "In God We Trust" is an establishment of theism, and thus an establishment of one religious position over another. The "we" does not refer to the 30 million or so nontheists in America today! For Congress to change the national motto from a secular unifying statement to a religious divisive affirmation, for many of us, is an endorsement of theism over nontheism and is therefore unconstitutional.

[Dob Bole]

19. The Issue at hand is Free Speech

and that's why it will be struck down. Schools already can't force people to say the pledge. This was a wacko ruling, about whether students could be allowed to say it voluntarily. That's why everyone in both parties was against the ruling, whether Tom Daschle or Pat Robertson.

[karlschneider]

20. Well, technically, they cannot "force" them to say it, but they can damn

sure "strongly suggest" it. And have a lot of local support for that position. I suspect you are a youngster and have no memories of the late 1950s (or knowledge of certain activities back then) when it was commonplace for school teachers to insist on various morning 'devotionals' IN ADDITION to the 'pledge'.

As a student during those times, I had no easy way to either ignore or complain about faculty-led prayers (always, of course, in the name of Jesus which caused my Jewish friends no small amount of discomfort.) My only real feasible protest was my refusal to recite the 'pledge' when they added the "under god" part. And that pissed off some people. Tough cookies.

If a kid wants to worship a piece of cloth, let him/her do it on their own fucking time. NOT in the classroom.

Of course, back then before "they" took "god" out of the schools, everything was perfect. Nobody ever got into trouble, or pregnant (I sure wondered about all those girls who "went away to visit a sick aunt."

The fundies promote the bogus notion that "prayer has been outlawed in school." Bullshit. Any kid who wants to IM whatever invisible spook in the sky (which direction is appropriate?...does it depend on the time zone?) is perfectly free to do so any time they wish. And if it's done according to the instruction of their Christian Icon, it should be silent. So who's bothered? Not this puppy. If your deity ain't good enough to hear a silent prayer, she ain't worth a shit anyway.

[BlueJazz]

21. Amen and Well Said, Brother!

N/T

[jobycom]

22. Not so sure

For a few reasons, don't write this one in stone yet.

The usual four will uphold the Ninth's decision. Thomas and Rehnquist will oppose. Kennedy and O'Connor are more interesting.

Kennedy is a flake who wants to think he is the lone independent, though he is usually conservative. Souter has said that he could have changed Kennedy's vote on Bush v Gore if he'd had one more day to work on it. Kennedy's the kind who might feel he owes the other side, and might vote with the liberals just to secure his self-image as an independent.

O'Connor is more complex. Her basic philosophy seems to be that each decision should be made on its own merit with as little influence on other cases as possible. She doesn't like sweeping decisions, and narrows hers to the case at hand.

Either of those could surprise us. Kennedy because he's just a loose cannon, or O'Connor because she might focus on the individual merits and determine that the Pledge really does violate the Bill of Rights for a number of reasons. She's focused enough to not worry about the ripple effect on other rulings.

This court likes dramatic decisions, and they like flexing their muscles. This would be a dramatic and powerful decision with very little actual impact aside from rhetorical screaming. Right now they are defined by Bush v Gore, and every one of them knows it. Some like that. But overturning the Pledge would give them a deeper reputation as an important court, and not just a lacky of the Republican Party. Kennedy would like that. O'Connor would, too, though she wouldn't be as obvious about it.

Then there's the election factor. Would the activists on this court give their party a great campaign issue by overturning the Pledge, thus giving Bush the ability to campaign for a year on nothing? Maybe.

So I'm not writing this decision down yet.