The 9th Court of Appeals heard arguments last week in the new Newdow cases. Michael Newdow, who shamed America with his Supreme Court arguments seeking to delete "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, has revised his case so that his own standing to contest the phrase cannot be doubted. He has upped the ante by adding a claim that our money should not contain the phrase "In God We Trust". The District Court has already handed Newdow a win, holding the Pledge unconstitutional. A different District judge rejected the "In God We Trust" claim.
Obviously, the 9th Circuit will posture these cases for the Supreme Court to hear again. And, while I'm tempted to say that this is a petty fight that generates more work than its resolution warrants, I'm going to come down on the side of saying this is worth debating in the courts. The decision will tell us something about what kind of country we are -- regardless of the result.
Obviously, the 9th Circuit will posture these cases for the Supreme Court to hear again. And, while I'm tempted to say that this is a petty fight that generates more work than its resolution warrants, I'm going to come down on the side of saying this is worth debating in the courts. The decision will tell us something about what kind of country we are -- regardless of the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment