"Four-Four, I win."
Oct. 15th, 2003 09:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAntonin Scalia is perhaps infamously known for the line "Five to four, I win." It was said during an interview he attended between rounds of a tennis game and he winked at the reporter when he said it.
Scalia has recused himself from the Supreme Court during the hearing for the Nedow case, in which the Supreme Court will decide if the phrase "under God" is the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes a government endorsement of religious belief. It will be hard to see how the Supremes could decide it was not, since after all the phrase was inserted to "distinguish the American way of life from that of the godless communists." Newdow's argument is that the requirement of the phrase coerces godless Americans into mouthing an endorsement of religion with which they do not agree.
Scalia has clearly learned from Sun Tzu (and Miles Vorkosigan) in this case. No matter what happens in this case, Scalia wins. If the Supreme Court agrees with him that the phrase is "perfectly constitutional" then the status quo is maintained and atheists and agnostics remain valid subjects for the government imposition of religious precepts. If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit Court's assessment that the phrase represents a government endorsement of religion via legislative fiat, the backlash will be ferocious.
And given that the ruling is going to come out in late spring, just a the presidential campaign is into its peak frenzy, if the Supreme Court agrees with Newdow's argument, the anger unleashed will easily re-elect Bush and his cronies, as well as maintain a conservative Congress for the duration.
Congress unanimously denounced the 9th Circuit's ruling, and the White House garnered brownie points by calling the ruling "ridiculous." Don't think it won't happen.
This couldn't have come at a worse moment in history.
Scalia has recused himself from the Supreme Court during the hearing for the Nedow case, in which the Supreme Court will decide if the phrase "under God" is the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes a government endorsement of religious belief. It will be hard to see how the Supremes could decide it was not, since after all the phrase was inserted to "distinguish the American way of life from that of the godless communists." Newdow's argument is that the requirement of the phrase coerces godless Americans into mouthing an endorsement of religion with which they do not agree.
Scalia has clearly learned from Sun Tzu (and Miles Vorkosigan) in this case. No matter what happens in this case, Scalia wins. If the Supreme Court agrees with him that the phrase is "perfectly constitutional" then the status quo is maintained and atheists and agnostics remain valid subjects for the government imposition of religious precepts. If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit Court's assessment that the phrase represents a government endorsement of religion via legislative fiat, the backlash will be ferocious.
And given that the ruling is going to come out in late spring, just a the presidential campaign is into its peak frenzy, if the Supreme Court agrees with Newdow's argument, the anger unleashed will easily re-elect Bush and his cronies, as well as maintain a conservative Congress for the duration.
Congress unanimously denounced the 9th Circuit's ruling, and the White House garnered brownie points by calling the ruling "ridiculous." Don't think it won't happen.
This couldn't have come at a worse moment in history.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-15 05:37 pm (UTC)I have a much better idea. How about if they decide it's not constitutional, and they remove it from the Pledge? How about that, huh?
Of course, in this circus of a world, I suppose it doesn't matter how stoopid they're all being over this whole set of issues. Politicians don't actually want religious freedom from the noises they're making in their corner of the monkey cage.
There's a problem here...
Date: 2003-10-15 06:38 pm (UTC)Er, that's...
Date: 2003-10-15 06:41 pm (UTC)