Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, September 15, 2005

District Judge Slams Supreme Court

Judge Karlton (Federal Judge in CA) ruled the pledge unconstitutional - but actually he ruled he was bound by the 9th Circuit precedent set last year, on which the SC cravenly punted.

His final footnote slams the SC for its recent decisions in the area of church-state separation, which is meant, I presume, to be a challenge.

"This court would be less than candid if it did not
acknowledge that it is relieved that, by virtue of the disposition
above, it need not attempt to apply the Supreme Court’s recently
articulated distinction between those governmental activities which
endorse religion, and are thus prohibited, and those which
acknowledge the Nation’s asserted religious heritage, and thus
are permitted. As last terms cases, McCreary County v. ACLU, 125
S.Ct. 2722, 2005 WL 1498988 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 125
S.Ct. 2854, 2005 WL 1500276 (2005) demonstrate, the distinction is
utterly standardless, and ultimate resolution depends of the
shifting, subjective sensibilities of any five members of the High
Court, leaving those of us who work in the vineyard without
guidance. Moreover, because the doctrine is inherently a boundaryless
slippery slope, any conclusion might pass muster. It might
be remembered that it was only a little more than one hundred ago
that the Supreme Court of this nation declared without hesitation,
after reviewing the history of religion in this country, that “this
is a Christian nation.” Church of the Holy Trinity v. United
States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892). As preposterous as it might
seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for
substituting “under Christ” for “under God” in the pledge, thus
marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, as the present form
of the Pledge does, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians,
Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents who, not only are
citizens of this nation, but in fact reside in this judicial


Anonymous said...

Politicized religion is fundamentally opposed to the idea of liberty itself. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

You do not have to be an atheist to be in a liberal democracy. And you do not have to confine your beliefs, based on religion, to your private action, while following only a utilitarian morality in a public sphere. 

// posted by LTG