{"id":962,"date":"2003-03-01T02:23:59","date_gmt":"2003-03-01T18:23:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/2003\/03\/01\/pledge-ruling-upheld\/"},"modified":"2019-12-06T08:44:02","modified_gmt":"2019-12-06T16:44:02","slug":"pledge-ruling-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/2003\/03\/01\/pledge-ruling-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Pledge ruling upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"

Back in June, when the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional<\/a> because the words “under God” encroached on the division between church and state, I didn’t think that the ruling would stand. In a nation where if you don’t support the President’s holy crusade you’re just another one of those damn dirty traitors, I expected the public outcry would end up pushing the courts into overturning the ruling.<\/p>\n

I was quite<\/em> pleasantly surprised to read yesterday that the appeals court has rejected the request to reconsider the ruling, letting it stand as-is.<\/p>\n

From the New York Times<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n A federal appeals court stood by its ruling that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words “under God,” perhaps setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court fight over a decision that prompted a nationwide outcry.<\/p>\n

Bush administration officials strongly condemned Friday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though they stopped short of saying they would appeal to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

[Judge Steven] Reinhardt lashed out at the “disturbingly wrong-headed” dissent that public outcry over the pledge ruling should have persuaded the circuit to reconsider.<\/p>\n

“The Bill of Rights is, of course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority against the temporary passions of a majority which might wish to limit their freedoms or liberties,” Reinhardt wrote.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And from Reuters<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n In defending the ruling, defiant 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said that the court would not be swayed by public outrage over one of its decisions and did not consider the “importance of an issue” good enough reason to rehear a legal ruling that it considered correct.<\/p>\n

“We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions,” Reinhardt wrote.<\/p>\n

“It is particularly important that we understand the nature of our obligations and the strength of our constitutional principles in times of national crisis,” he wrote. “It is then that our freedoms and our liberties are in the greatest peril.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not terribly surprisingly, Attorney General John Ashcroft has sworn to appeal to the Supreme Court<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n “THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag,” Ashcroft said in a statement issued in Washington shortly after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declined to reconsider its ruling. “We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

John, John, John. I’m no legal expert, but I haven’t gotten the impression that the Pledge of Allegiance has been banned outright — only that it is not to be a school-sponsored activity. All Americans still have the right and the ability to voluntarily declare their patriotism any way they want to<\/em> whenever they want. They just shouldn’t be forced<\/em> to do so in ways that may conflict with their personal beliefs. I have to admit, the mental picture of a man like Ashcroft — who’s likely to equate Wiccanism with ‘Satanism’ — trying to cope with the concept of a “patriotic Witch” makes me laugh. A lot.Atheists and Agnostics can be patriotic, as can Muslims, Hindus, Baha’i, Buddhists, and so on. Heck, I’d bet that even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Wiccans can be patrotic! But they don’t believe in ‘God’, and shouldn’t be required to profess a belief that they do not hold.<\/p>\n

Anyway, the original ruling was made. That ruling has now been confirmed. Now it appears that it may fall to the Supreme Court to finish this off. We’ll see how things end up if this does end up heading their way, but in the meantime, congratulations to Judge Reinheart and the rest of the Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

(Via MeFi<\/a> and BoingBoing<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have to admit, the mental picture of a man like Ashcroft — who’s likely to equate Wiccanism with ‘Satanism’ — trying to cope with the concept of a ‘patriotic Witch’ makes me laugh. A lot.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2042],"tags":[14],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/962"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}