Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 18, 2003 17:19:45 GMT -5
Click here to view the article on the original page
By BILL ADAIR, Times Staff Writer
Published: November 17, 2003
Publication: St. Petersburg Times
WASHINGTON - Michael Newdow is a passionate atheist.
He filed a lawsuit to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and wants "In God We Trust" taken off coins and currency. He has even recorded a CD of atheist folk songs.
In the song Old Religion Blues, he offers a sarcastic view of people who want God in the Pledge:
"They ran it through the Congress, each colleague gave a nod," he sings. "Well damn the Constitution! This country needs some God!"
Newdow, a former emergency room physician in Sacramento, Calif., who has little legal experience, is not the type of person you might expect to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has chosen to be a legal do-it-yourselfer even though he is not a member of Supreme Court bar. As early as this week, the court must decide whether he can argue the case or if someone else should represent him.
His case is one of two before the court in which the principles are acting as their own lawyers. Newdow and Allan Favish, who is representing himself in a case involving access to photos of a dead presidential aide, say they are well-suited, even if they have no experience with the court.
"I'm very familiar with all the issues," says Favish, a Los Angeles lawyer. "I really couldn't trust anyone else to be as familiar as I am."
Newdow says he might not be as polished as Supreme Court regulars, but he's confident he can prevail.
"Even if I do stink, I'm going to win," he said.
But some analysts and lawyers say Newdow and Favish could be hurt by their lack of experience and might be too emotional.
Tony Mauro, a Supreme Court analyst for American Lawyer Media, says the justices are not prejudiced against rookies, but they have seemed uneasy with lawyers who represent themselves.
Mauro said the justices "seem to be uncomfortable with a personal pleading." They are more at ease with veteran attorneys.
"Arguing at the Supreme Court," Mauro says, "has become sort of a clubby thing."
The high cost of lawyers
There's an old saying in legal circles that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. It's based on the belief that the lawyer can't be objective about a personal case.
Of course, that maxim hasn't deterred many people from representing themselves in cases at all levels of the legal system. (It's known as pro se, Latin for "on one's own behalf.") Accused sniper John Allen Muhammad acted as his own lawyer in the first few days of his trial, at one point asking a witness, "Have you ever seen me shoot anyone?"
Some people believe they can be a better advocate than a hired attorney. Others, especially in civil cases like the two before the court, do it to save money. Hiring a lawyer for a Supreme Court case can cost more than $200,000.
Favish says that when he filed his case over the photos of Clinton aide Vince Foster, "I didn't have the money to pay an attorney an hourly fee."
The court does not keep statistics on pro se cases, but analysts say the cases are rare. It's especially unusual to have two in the same term.
Court observers say do-it-yourselfers probably win less often before the Supreme Court than other lawyers, but a 1998 New York tax case is an exception. In that case, a man convinced the court that he was entitled to a tax deduction for alimony even though he had moved out of the state.
"The Rev. Dr. Newdow'
The Favish and Newdow cases are quite different, but the two lawyers both have strong feelings about their causes.
Favish, 48, a Los Angeles lawyer who earns a living handling insurance cases, has spent hundreds of hours in the last decade researching the death of Vince Foster, a Clinton aide whose body was found in a Virginia park. Favish says the federal government bungled the investigation and may have incorrectly determined it was a suicide. He says Foster was probably murdered.
Favish filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see photographs of Foster's body, but the government rejected the request because of privacy concerns.
The photos should be public so people can judge for themselves how Foster was killed, he says.
Newdow, 50, believes it is unconstitutional to require students to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He went to law school in the late 1980s but was a doctor all his career. He did not become a member of the California bar until last year.
He sued the Elk Grove, Calif., school district where his 9-year-old daughter is enrolled because it, like other California districts, requires students to engage in a "patriotic exercise" such as the pledge. A federal appellate court ruled in Newdow's favor, saying the mention of God was an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion."
On his Web site, www.restorethepledge.com Newdow says he is a minister with the Universal Life Church and refers to himself as "The Rev. Dr. Newdow." He writes that the mention of God in the pledge "is infuriating to me as much as "one Nation under white people,' "one Nation under Jesus,' or "one Nation under no god' would be."
But some lawyers and law professors say that kind of passion may be too strong for the rarefied atmosphere of the Supreme Court chamber.
Roger Schechter, a law professor at George Washington University, said the pro se lawyers "have to act as any other lawyer would - they have to be professional and dispassionate and responsive to questions without completely running off the rails or ranting."
Schechter said veteran lawyers have an advantage because they know the justices and the nuances of their beliefs.
The lawyers "have an ability to decode a question" from a justice, he said. "They hear a question against a context of 15 years of other questions."
A bold request
Newdow has had some remarkable victories with his case. Not only did he win in the federal appeals court, but he recently neutralized Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who would have been a likely opponent.
Newdow filed an unusual motion asking Scalia to recuse himself from the case because the justice had given a speech in Fredricksburg, Va., saying the courts had gone overboard keeping God out of government. In that speech, Scalia indicated he disagreed with the appellate court's ruling in Newdow's favor.
When the court accepted the case last month, Scalia recused himself.
Mauro, who has written about the court for more than 20 years, said seasoned lawyers might be afraid to make such a bold request.
"You request it at your peril because you might be offending" the justices, he said.
Newdow says his lack of experience has been an asset because he has a fresh eye and is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
"Experience is a double-edged sword," he said last week. "Our experience sometimes leads us the wrong way. What we think is effective is not."
The court now must consider whether he can argue his own case. Unlike Favish, who is a member of the Supreme Court bar, Newdow is not.
Another possible wrinkle: The court could rule that Newdow does not have "standing" to file his suit because of a custody dispute over his daughter with the girl's mother.
He said the court could decide to appoint someone else or direct him to find an attorney. Still, he hopes to be the one at the lectern in the court's ornate chamber, representing himself in the one-hour arguments likely to be held in March.
"I know this stuff," he said. "I've been doing it longer more than most of the people I could find. I'm a good arguer. I'll argue with anybody about anything.”
Maverick: Added to the news page. Message icon updated.
By BILL ADAIR, Times Staff Writer
Published: November 17, 2003
Publication: St. Petersburg Times
WASHINGTON - Michael Newdow is a passionate atheist.
He filed a lawsuit to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and wants "In God We Trust" taken off coins and currency. He has even recorded a CD of atheist folk songs.
In the song Old Religion Blues, he offers a sarcastic view of people who want God in the Pledge:
"They ran it through the Congress, each colleague gave a nod," he sings. "Well damn the Constitution! This country needs some God!"
Newdow, a former emergency room physician in Sacramento, Calif., who has little legal experience, is not the type of person you might expect to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has chosen to be a legal do-it-yourselfer even though he is not a member of Supreme Court bar. As early as this week, the court must decide whether he can argue the case or if someone else should represent him.
His case is one of two before the court in which the principles are acting as their own lawyers. Newdow and Allan Favish, who is representing himself in a case involving access to photos of a dead presidential aide, say they are well-suited, even if they have no experience with the court.
"I'm very familiar with all the issues," says Favish, a Los Angeles lawyer. "I really couldn't trust anyone else to be as familiar as I am."
Newdow says he might not be as polished as Supreme Court regulars, but he's confident he can prevail.
"Even if I do stink, I'm going to win," he said.
But some analysts and lawyers say Newdow and Favish could be hurt by their lack of experience and might be too emotional.
Tony Mauro, a Supreme Court analyst for American Lawyer Media, says the justices are not prejudiced against rookies, but they have seemed uneasy with lawyers who represent themselves.
Mauro said the justices "seem to be uncomfortable with a personal pleading." They are more at ease with veteran attorneys.
"Arguing at the Supreme Court," Mauro says, "has become sort of a clubby thing."
The high cost of lawyers
There's an old saying in legal circles that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. It's based on the belief that the lawyer can't be objective about a personal case.
Of course, that maxim hasn't deterred many people from representing themselves in cases at all levels of the legal system. (It's known as pro se, Latin for "on one's own behalf.") Accused sniper John Allen Muhammad acted as his own lawyer in the first few days of his trial, at one point asking a witness, "Have you ever seen me shoot anyone?"
Some people believe they can be a better advocate than a hired attorney. Others, especially in civil cases like the two before the court, do it to save money. Hiring a lawyer for a Supreme Court case can cost more than $200,000.
Favish says that when he filed his case over the photos of Clinton aide Vince Foster, "I didn't have the money to pay an attorney an hourly fee."
The court does not keep statistics on pro se cases, but analysts say the cases are rare. It's especially unusual to have two in the same term.
Court observers say do-it-yourselfers probably win less often before the Supreme Court than other lawyers, but a 1998 New York tax case is an exception. In that case, a man convinced the court that he was entitled to a tax deduction for alimony even though he had moved out of the state.
"The Rev. Dr. Newdow'
The Favish and Newdow cases are quite different, but the two lawyers both have strong feelings about their causes.
Favish, 48, a Los Angeles lawyer who earns a living handling insurance cases, has spent hundreds of hours in the last decade researching the death of Vince Foster, a Clinton aide whose body was found in a Virginia park. Favish says the federal government bungled the investigation and may have incorrectly determined it was a suicide. He says Foster was probably murdered.
Favish filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see photographs of Foster's body, but the government rejected the request because of privacy concerns.
The photos should be public so people can judge for themselves how Foster was killed, he says.
Newdow, 50, believes it is unconstitutional to require students to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He went to law school in the late 1980s but was a doctor all his career. He did not become a member of the California bar until last year.
He sued the Elk Grove, Calif., school district where his 9-year-old daughter is enrolled because it, like other California districts, requires students to engage in a "patriotic exercise" such as the pledge. A federal appellate court ruled in Newdow's favor, saying the mention of God was an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion."
On his Web site, www.restorethepledge.com Newdow says he is a minister with the Universal Life Church and refers to himself as "The Rev. Dr. Newdow." He writes that the mention of God in the pledge "is infuriating to me as much as "one Nation under white people,' "one Nation under Jesus,' or "one Nation under no god' would be."
But some lawyers and law professors say that kind of passion may be too strong for the rarefied atmosphere of the Supreme Court chamber.
Roger Schechter, a law professor at George Washington University, said the pro se lawyers "have to act as any other lawyer would - they have to be professional and dispassionate and responsive to questions without completely running off the rails or ranting."
Schechter said veteran lawyers have an advantage because they know the justices and the nuances of their beliefs.
The lawyers "have an ability to decode a question" from a justice, he said. "They hear a question against a context of 15 years of other questions."
A bold request
Newdow has had some remarkable victories with his case. Not only did he win in the federal appeals court, but he recently neutralized Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who would have been a likely opponent.
Newdow filed an unusual motion asking Scalia to recuse himself from the case because the justice had given a speech in Fredricksburg, Va., saying the courts had gone overboard keeping God out of government. In that speech, Scalia indicated he disagreed with the appellate court's ruling in Newdow's favor.
When the court accepted the case last month, Scalia recused himself.
Mauro, who has written about the court for more than 20 years, said seasoned lawyers might be afraid to make such a bold request.
"You request it at your peril because you might be offending" the justices, he said.
Newdow says his lack of experience has been an asset because he has a fresh eye and is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
"Experience is a double-edged sword," he said last week. "Our experience sometimes leads us the wrong way. What we think is effective is not."
The court now must consider whether he can argue his own case. Unlike Favish, who is a member of the Supreme Court bar, Newdow is not.
Another possible wrinkle: The court could rule that Newdow does not have "standing" to file his suit because of a custody dispute over his daughter with the girl's mother.
He said the court could decide to appoint someone else or direct him to find an attorney. Still, he hopes to be the one at the lectern in the court's ornate chamber, representing himself in the one-hour arguments likely to be held in March.
"I know this stuff," he said. "I've been doing it longer more than most of the people I could find. I'm a good arguer. I'll argue with anybody about anything.”
Maverick: Added to the news page. Message icon updated.
