Wednesday, October 15, 2003

The Pledge Case

I’ve stayed away from posting on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Pledge of Allegiance case, mostly because The Volokh Conspiracy has it well covered.

If I had to take a guess though, I’d says there’s an outside shot that the Court will find that Newdow has no standing to complain, and a good shot of a 4-4 split if they actually render a verdict on the merits.

(1) Comments
Posted by Jed at 0712 hrs
Law

  1. It is absolutly unjustifyable to have “under god” in the pledge.  It is sick and wrong.  I’m glad everyone seems to see that it was added to be spefically anti-atheist, with that being the intent I can’t imagine it can stand for long.  That is unquestionally an immoral intent and clearly illegal as it promotes religion.  It’ll be simple to show that it does hurt children. 

    Dr. Newdow’s daughters opinion of the pledge should be irrelivent.  I go back and forth on wether or not custody ahould be relivent.  I tend to feel it should be irrelivent but I know nothing of law.  I’d like to think a childless person could bring it to court just because it is immoral, hurtful and illegal.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 16, 2003 at 0115 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.