"Four-Four, I win."

[elfs]

Antonin 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.

Comments

Unanimous?

[jenkitty.livejournal.com]

Now let me get this straight. Ron Paul voted against the no-call list because it wasn't strictly Constitutional, but he approved this???

Must be because it wasn't a binding mandate, just a declaration. Grump. When the only Libertarian in Congress places his own reelection bid over principles just because there's no actual law being passed...

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Hum. What if it was four to four? what if they decide on second thought to pocket the thing?

[woggie.livejournal.com]

Wait a second. I may have missed something, but wasn't that "Under God" stuff inserted sometime in the 50s or 60s? And they're only now getting around to figuring out whether it's constitutional or not?

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.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

A four-to-four vote would let the lower court's ruling stand, meaning that the phrase "under God" violates the first prong of the Lemon Test that laws must not have explicitly religious purposes, and the law amending the pledge would be unconstitutional.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

If they fail to render a decision, as I understand it, then the decision stands only for the Ninth Circuit... I'll doublecheck with lisakit, but...

There's a problem here...

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of people in the US who are absolutely rabid to the point of unreason about seeing that those words remain in the pledge (if you don't believe me, have a look at the "We've Got Mail" message board at http://www.snopes.com). If they're removed on constitutional grounds, these folks, who might otherwise have opposed Bush for other reasons, will foam at the mouth and campaign for him to be removed to power so that he can remove the godless justices. Sigh...

Er, that's...

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

"returned to power", not "removed to power".

Eh?

[(Anonymous)]

The constitution is as ludicrous a relic as anything else committed to words by the founding fathers. America is a de facto Christian nation. What part of this don't people understand? Why is it only obvious to non-Americans?

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

Correct. However the 9th Circuit's decision can be used as persuasive argument (as opposed to binding) in other jurisdictions.

It's late and I'm rambling..

[zaiah.livejournal.com]

*sighs some softly* I don't know if it's apathy or ambivalence.. I really could care less either way this stuff goes. :/

I, personally, love the pledge of allegiance, but then I have an easy time redefining words to my own meaning - since first grade when I challenged the need to say "God" in school since I always wanted to know which god or force of nature they were referring to; I have been substituting "Under God" for something along the lines of "By all that I hold dear, reverent, and of esteem."

It is a pledge to be a citizen, to love our country, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEING SAID IN SCHOOLS AT ALL! err.. maybe not quite that much yelling, but you get my meaning?

I think citizenship should get far more that simple lip service in the training of our youth - and though I will home school as necessary and protect my child from the potential horrors public school has to bring to them - I know of waves of children that would greatly benefit from a little more discipline in their lives and a little more thought into the consequences or appearance of their actions..

I also attended schools where the national anthem was sang each morning and anyone who wished to could sign up on the calendar to sing it and lead the pledge (via intercom). The students LOVED that opportunity.

That said - an interesting tidbit from my peace studies days.. Two boys from West Germany.. or western Germany if you like.. were visiting in the united states and staying with this professor's family as they prepared for a conference.

There was only one item on their entire trip (through ghettos, on tours, in church, or in community activities) that disturbed them. It was the moment when, at the start of the Trailblazers game, everyone stood and sang the National Anthem.

They were overwhelmed and shaking from the power of that display and how deeply all such images from their native land have been disassembled. They could brook no understanding of anything that squeaked of such Nationalism as which led them into their previous wars.

Granted I want more people to know the true meaning of being a patriot - but I wish that we could encourage our youth to get there.. to have a place to start from. Having each school sponsor an authorship of their own pledge.. and then a democratic voice on what the result would be - is just another small way this could happen. *sleepy, sorry for the ramble..*

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we don't have to let the pinheads know that :)

Re: It's late and I'm rambling..

[elfs.livejournal.com]

The true meaning of patriotism, though, is not ensconsed in a collection of words, or a song. It's in action. I'm offended to the core by people who believe that the phrase "under God," which by the very statements of its insertors violates the secular reasoning test for legislative actions, is constitutional. I'm offended by those who believe that Americans who won't say it are somehow "lesser human beings" or at the very least "unpatriotic."

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

If the 9th Circuit's decision is overturned though, it becomes "bad law" (like food gone bad) and you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to use it in your argument. So it's only usable, whether binding in 9th Circuit or as a secondary source in another jurisdiction if the appealed decision is upheld.