The GOP should fund these guys. The "Stench from the Bench" does more to elect Republicans than all our fundraisers put together.

If the Supreme Court would have upheld the 9th Circuit last year, the President may have gotten OJ's 50 states.

If the very dim chance occurs and the Supreme Court upholds this decision, then a new speed record for Constitutional amendments being submitted and ratified will be set. It might even bring along the flag burning amendment for the ride.

For her sake, Hillary better be on the side of the angels here.

The opinion concludes on this note:

"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 term's 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."

Not bad for a Carter appointee.

Random Lawyer:

Yes, but a small price to pay for a Living Constitution!

Do any of our west coast lawyer friends know if there has been a change in the 9th circus since the last time this matter went through there?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 14, 2005 5:37 PM

Interesting to see if this is what finally pushes the SBC over the edge.

Leave out "under God" -- it was tacked on, wrongly I think, during the Eisenhower years and I still recite it the original way we learned in school. It's to the flag as the symbol of our country that we're pledging our allegiance, not to God.

Robert:

The Ninth Circuit is so large (almost 30 judges) that recent Bush appointees minimally alter the draw (of three judges from the thirty). Notwithstanding Bush appointees, there are plenty of three-judge panels that are mathematically possible consisting of hard-core secular lefties.

Fred: IIRC, senior judges do not sit on the en banc panel. Does that change the equation?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 14, 2005 6:16 PM

Conservatives should oppose the pledge, as it is socialist claptrap.

carter:

Not since we edited it.

Reversed. Per curiam. It is not good for inferior courts to be thus arrogant and flippant.

Karl Rove must be using some kind of secret mind-control technology on the 9th Circuit. This is exactly, exactly what is needed to keep the Republican base fired up.

Non-umpireism rears its ugly head once again.

I counted the judges on the 9th circus. 16 Dems 3 Carter nominees and 15 Clintonites! 8 republicans. We need some court packing.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 14, 2005 9:35 PM

That's why we need Roberts Rules of Order!

Anyone who doesn't wish to affirm God can stay silent during those 3 syllables.

They can leave.

Or they can stay.

Affirm God to your heart's content either silently or audibly, but leave the affirmation out of the text of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I hope the right isn't planning to introduce a spate of trivial constitutional amendments about flag burning and prayer in school because if you want to turn off libertarians and just plain undecideds, that's a good way to do it.

Remember prayer in school will include Muslims being allowed to face Mecca and chant prayers five times a day. How cool will that look to the local kids. What out what you wish for.

The next Democratic candidate might not be such an obvious doofus or dork and voters might consider giving the other side a chance, especially once the media gets through scaring the bejeesus out of them.

The Declaration on Independence, as well as the constitution itself would appear to be unconstitutional.

erp:

The Republic is premised on God-given liberties, so it's fitting to recognize Him in the Pledge.

Robert;

Why would they?

Why not? Why should they leave just because most people are believers? I don't see a problem with coexistence, why do you?