|
Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: Snowspinner on March 24, 2004, 07:13:32 PM Report of the oral arguments
CNN and others are reporting it so it sounds like a wash for the government, so I don't know what to make of Lithwick here. The New York Times appears more even-handed, so it may just be CNN sucking. Serious possibility of a 4-4 tie, though, since Newdow got Scalia to recuse himself, unless they dodge it by ruling against Newdow having standing. In which case, by all appearances, someone who subsequently raised the issue would do well to hire Newdow as their lawyer. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: personman on March 25, 2004, 04:53:54 AM The irony is that pledge was originally supposed to be secular so as to avoid these sorts of problems, which was a pretty amazing mindset for the 1890s...
I can't shake the conviction this all started as a way to stick it to the ex-wife. Having been through one divorce myself I simply can't conceive of burdening my daughter in the name of "being right in her eyes". All this time spent fighting uphill to SCOTUS would be better spent taking the kid to the zoo or the park. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: koboshi on March 25, 2004, 10:48:30 AM Quote I can't shake the conviction this all started as a way to stick it to the ex-wife. I agree, but then again my dad didn’t go to the Supreme Court for me when I blew off the pledge, so I’m still rooting for the guy. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: Mediocre on March 26, 2004, 04:57:53 PM If it's thrown out on technical grounds because he doesn't have standing, I'm sure there are many like myself who would jump at the chance to be the next kid in line to follow the suit and get a real ruling out of it; 18, in high school, and having to listen to the pledge on a regular basis recited by the school officials.
IMO, I think they'll give a real ruling -- and it will be 5-3 against Newdow. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: personman on March 26, 2004, 07:07:06 PM I have no issue with the Pledge being required. It would be nice if people found their own reasons to crawl out of the All About Me shell. But they rarely do and all too often it becomes something that at best they thank their parents for after age thirty.
Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: Mediocre on March 27, 2004, 01:37:30 AM The best argument against it being required was Jesse Venturas': "Patriotism is something which comes from the heart, not something you force onto people."
That, and if it's required, take out the Under God, mmkay? Considering that we did just fine without it in the first place. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: Daeven on March 29, 2004, 12:27:17 PM Sweet mother of god! Don't confuse the plebian masses by implying that someone changed the pledge! Next you know some twit will be demanding we change the motto back to E Plurbis Unim, instead of In God We Trust!
Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: daveNYC on March 29, 2004, 01:04:29 PM Quote from: Daeven Sweet mother of god! Don't confuse the plebian masses by implying that someone changed the pledge! Next you know some twit will be demanding we change the motto back to E Plurbis Unim, instead of In God We Trust! A quick check of my penny has me wondering what you're talking about. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: DarkDryad on March 30, 2004, 10:03:55 AM Quote from: daveNYC Quote from: Daeven Sweet mother of god! Don't confuse the plebian masses by implying that someone changed the pledge! Next you know some twit will be demanding we change the motto back to E Plurbis Unim, instead of In God We Trust! A quick check of my penny has me wondering what you're talking about. *Edit* Oops wrong phrase it means "out of many one" Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: DarkDryad on March 30, 2004, 10:11:08 AM I think what hes trying to get across is that over time or leaders have been slowly changing our from a neutral no preference scociety where everyone is free to worship as they please to one where Christianity is trumpeted as the official religion but not enforced thus slowly giving way to the govenment sanctioned religions we fled england to escape.
That about sum it up bro? Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: DarkDryad on March 30, 2004, 10:12:41 AM Quote from: daveNYC Quote from: Daeven Sweet mother of god! Don't confuse the plebian masses by implying that someone changed the pledge! Next you know some twit will be demanding we change the motto back to E Plurbis Unim, instead of In God We Trust! A quick check of my penny has me wondering what you're talking about. Actually the penny has both but only had Epluribus unum on it untill there was a huge religious uprising in this country around the civil war timeline. Title: The Pledge Case in SCOTUS Post by: Daeven on March 30, 2004, 02:30:30 PM Quote from: DarkDryad I think what hes trying to get across is that over time or leaders have been slowly changing our from a neutral no preference scociety where everyone is free to worship as they please to one where Christianity is trumpeted as the official religion but not enforced thus slowly giving way to the govenment sanctioned religions we fled england to escape. That about sum it up bro? Pretty much. And it drives me nuts when the talking heads proclaim it has 'always' been that way. My counter is that they are absolutely correct, because, as we all know, time began in 1953. (and just as an aside, how many other places can you still find the original motto? Not many unfortunately.) |