I'm sure they wish he'd just go away. Last year, the Supreme court ducked the "under god" issue in the Pledge of Allegiance, preferring to rule that Michael A. Newdow, esq., lacked standing to bring the suit on behalf of his non-custodial child rather than have to face the substantive question. Well, turns out they couldn't get rid of the eloquent atheist that easily.
As an attorney, not a respondent--Newdow has filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. And in San Francisco today, Newdow's case has passed its first hurdle. As NY Times reports,
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing... Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Anyone who heard Mr. Newdow's brilliant testimony before the Supreme Court last year (Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow) knows that he can make one hell of a case. Now he's coming back to the courts with an even better one.
I wonder which judicial philosophy soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts will apply when the question reaches the Supreme Court again? Acoording to his own testimony, Roberts chooses whatever philosophy he feels best suits the case--and he has not disclosed how exactly he makes that determination. Some see pragmatic open-mindedness in Roberts' willingness to use multiple judicial philosophies. Others see it a license to pick and choose one's logic to justify one's desired conclusion. Regardless of the philosophy he chooses however, I suspect the decision of the Roberts court will be the same.
I don't think poor Mr. Newdow has a prayer.
No comments:
Post a Comment