Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 28, 2004 19:24:07 GMT -5
Larry Darby, President of the Atheist Law Centre, wrote the following opinion of the Elk Grove Unified School District v Michael Newdow case in the Center's e-mail newletter dated March 27, 2004. I thought you might find it an interesting read.
I propose that any other opinions or commentaries be added in this thread, as these aren't really "News" pieces, but speculation on a case that is quite important to atheists in the U.S. The Supreme Court isn't likely to have their official ruling published for several weeks, in the meantime, there will be plenty of speculation on the validity of the case and the projected outcome.
On another note, I alluded to the Third Circuit case in another post. This one deals with forced political recitations. I personally feel that this might have a better chance at success than the attempt at removing "Under God" does. Basically, there are too many people in the U.S. who are willing to accept ceremonial deism, but they may not like the idea of political agendas affecting their children (especially with the current state of politics, the rise in popularity of libertarianist philosophy and the encroachments of the current administration)
I propose that any other opinions or commentaries be added in this thread, as these aren't really "News" pieces, but speculation on a case that is quite important to atheists in the U.S. The Supreme Court isn't likely to have their official ruling published for several weeks, in the meantime, there will be plenty of speculation on the validity of the case and the projected outcome.
On Mar. 24 I attended the oral arguments before the U. S. Supreme Court in the matter of Elk Grove USD v. Newdow. I arrived at the building at about 7:50 a.m. and was too late to be seated in the Member (of the Supreme Court Bar) section of the courtroom. I obtained a card that would have allowed me to sit in the attorney overflow section, just it case, before initiating my alternative plan. My alternative plan was to sit in a seat reserved in the public section - and did I have a seat!
There were two oral arguments scheduled and the second one on the docket was Newdow's; the first pertained to a zoning law that an adult bookstore wanted thrown out. I was among the first group to be escorted in and we were seated on the second row behind the partition separating the public from the attorney's tables and the podium from which those addressing the Court would stand. The Member section was a small area behind the attorney tables and up to the partition marking the public area.
As chance would have it, I was seated directly behind the podium with an easy view of all 9 justices. When there was no attorney at the podium, I had a straight-on, face-to-face view of Chief Justice Rehnquist. The only time I could not see Rehnquist was when an attorney was addressing the Court. I made eye contact at some point during the arguments with all of the justices. The row in front of me remained empty during the first hearing.
Right before the Newdow case was called, a group of U.S. Senators or Representatives were escorted to the row directly in front of me. I hope to find the time to examine pictures of politicians and try and determine who at least some of them were. At least two of them seemed to recognize me. I kept coming into contact with them after we left the courtroom. I saw them near the Marshal's office and later as we were exiting the building. I hung around the steps to the Supreme Court Building after the hearing for a little while, being greeted by friends and supporters of the Center. When we left the steps we walked to a nearby hotdog stand and bought lunch before heading back to the hotel to retrieve the car.
I next noticed these two gentlemen as we walked away from the hotdog stand and toward Union Station where we would board the Metro back to the hotel at DuPont Circle. These men moved very close to my daughters and me and we all walked down the sidewalk together. I believe they left us when we all neared some of the congressional office buildings. Coincidental? Probably. Interesting? Fascinating.
Inside the courtroom there were assembled quite a few of the combatants in the American Religious Civil War. I saw Ayesha Kahn and, I believe, preacher Barry Lynn of the Americans United. I saw Jay Sekulow and Ken Starr of the other side, too. I spoke with Newdow briefly in the hallway after the hearing and as I was leaving the Marshal's office after having retrieved my cellular telephone.
There have been numerous mass media accounts of the hearing, some of which appear to be adequate to in-depth reports, and I won't attempt to restate those accounts. I do have some personal impressions that seem to counter some of the more glowingly complimentary reports about Newdow's arguments, the first of which I heard later that evening and coming from the mouth of Jay Sekulow on an MSNBC program when I was settling in a Charlottesville hotel room. Perhaps my impressions were formed in part because Newdow spoke far more rapidly and with much more emotion than I am accustomed to hearing in a courtroom setting. The justices who heard the case will have the benefit of an emotionless transcript.
My first impression early on, based on the questions and responses, was that Newdow would easily cross the hurdle of standing to sue. Then when Newdow began his substantive argument, one of the justices seemed to find fault with the perspective Newdow was using, that of his daughter and not himself, and I became concerned about the standing issue because he seemed locked into a mode of presentation a justice found offensive. I may have been overly concerned; I can't see the Court allowing the case to get this far and then ruling against Newdow on standing. I'm not sure why, but one of the justices, perhaps Kennedy, pointed out that Newdow's daughter would bear the brunt of the blame for this case. And consideration of this might explain Newdow's passions being roused, a risk a lawyer who represents himself runs.
It seemed to me that Newdow had a couple of opportunities to reply to queries from justices that pertained to "In God We Trust" and both times he came across as evasive or nonresponsive, missing chances to tie together different instances of ceremonial deism. Several of the organizations filing briefs in support of Newdow attempted to argue that "under God" does not fall under the category of ceremonial deism and perhaps Newdow believes that as well. Perhaps someone holding that position advised Newdow to simply stay focused on "under God." And that might have been wise advice because Justice Ginsberg, I believe, brought up the subject of "God Bless America," and getting into the issue of religious songs could have clouded the issue at hand. Probably almost every atheist in the country would be relieved to know that no statements about atheism being a religion were uttered.
Some of the justices appeared to not accept Newdow's position that the act of simply listening to the loyalty oath is coercive under the precedent of Lee v. Weisman. I agree with Newdow on this point, except I consider even the so-called secular versions of the loyalty oath to be coercive political speech and contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
What struck me most during the arguments took place during the last five minutes, which were allotted to Terence Cassidy, attorney for Elk Grove Unified School District. One of the justices asked Cassidy whether the phrase "under God" was religious; Cassidy answered that it was not religious, but instead a political statement. That should offend the devout because the Petitioner is conceding that the phrase is just another act of ceremonial deism.
I predict that standing will not kill this case because the issue of custody is so confusingly entangled with it. Most state high courts, including the Supreme Court of Alabama, typically will not get involved in domestic relations issues. And it would seem out of character for so-called conservative justices, like Rehnquist and Thomas, to interfere with long held common law of the father being the natural guardian of his children.
I will not predict an outcome on the substantive issue. Possibly with any ruling as to "under God" there will be unfinished business. Will religious brainwashing continue or do we revert to secular brainwashing?
Perhaps the case in the Third Circuit, which questions a pledge law based on it being political speech, will rise to the U. S. Supreme Court and be the logical end of the loyalty oath.
Regardless of the outcome, Newdow is to be commended for his enormous effort and success in advancing his case to the highest court.
There were two oral arguments scheduled and the second one on the docket was Newdow's; the first pertained to a zoning law that an adult bookstore wanted thrown out. I was among the first group to be escorted in and we were seated on the second row behind the partition separating the public from the attorney's tables and the podium from which those addressing the Court would stand. The Member section was a small area behind the attorney tables and up to the partition marking the public area.
As chance would have it, I was seated directly behind the podium with an easy view of all 9 justices. When there was no attorney at the podium, I had a straight-on, face-to-face view of Chief Justice Rehnquist. The only time I could not see Rehnquist was when an attorney was addressing the Court. I made eye contact at some point during the arguments with all of the justices. The row in front of me remained empty during the first hearing.
Right before the Newdow case was called, a group of U.S. Senators or Representatives were escorted to the row directly in front of me. I hope to find the time to examine pictures of politicians and try and determine who at least some of them were. At least two of them seemed to recognize me. I kept coming into contact with them after we left the courtroom. I saw them near the Marshal's office and later as we were exiting the building. I hung around the steps to the Supreme Court Building after the hearing for a little while, being greeted by friends and supporters of the Center. When we left the steps we walked to a nearby hotdog stand and bought lunch before heading back to the hotel to retrieve the car.
I next noticed these two gentlemen as we walked away from the hotdog stand and toward Union Station where we would board the Metro back to the hotel at DuPont Circle. These men moved very close to my daughters and me and we all walked down the sidewalk together. I believe they left us when we all neared some of the congressional office buildings. Coincidental? Probably. Interesting? Fascinating.
Inside the courtroom there were assembled quite a few of the combatants in the American Religious Civil War. I saw Ayesha Kahn and, I believe, preacher Barry Lynn of the Americans United. I saw Jay Sekulow and Ken Starr of the other side, too. I spoke with Newdow briefly in the hallway after the hearing and as I was leaving the Marshal's office after having retrieved my cellular telephone.
There have been numerous mass media accounts of the hearing, some of which appear to be adequate to in-depth reports, and I won't attempt to restate those accounts. I do have some personal impressions that seem to counter some of the more glowingly complimentary reports about Newdow's arguments, the first of which I heard later that evening and coming from the mouth of Jay Sekulow on an MSNBC program when I was settling in a Charlottesville hotel room. Perhaps my impressions were formed in part because Newdow spoke far more rapidly and with much more emotion than I am accustomed to hearing in a courtroom setting. The justices who heard the case will have the benefit of an emotionless transcript.
My first impression early on, based on the questions and responses, was that Newdow would easily cross the hurdle of standing to sue. Then when Newdow began his substantive argument, one of the justices seemed to find fault with the perspective Newdow was using, that of his daughter and not himself, and I became concerned about the standing issue because he seemed locked into a mode of presentation a justice found offensive. I may have been overly concerned; I can't see the Court allowing the case to get this far and then ruling against Newdow on standing. I'm not sure why, but one of the justices, perhaps Kennedy, pointed out that Newdow's daughter would bear the brunt of the blame for this case. And consideration of this might explain Newdow's passions being roused, a risk a lawyer who represents himself runs.
It seemed to me that Newdow had a couple of opportunities to reply to queries from justices that pertained to "In God We Trust" and both times he came across as evasive or nonresponsive, missing chances to tie together different instances of ceremonial deism. Several of the organizations filing briefs in support of Newdow attempted to argue that "under God" does not fall under the category of ceremonial deism and perhaps Newdow believes that as well. Perhaps someone holding that position advised Newdow to simply stay focused on "under God." And that might have been wise advice because Justice Ginsberg, I believe, brought up the subject of "God Bless America," and getting into the issue of religious songs could have clouded the issue at hand. Probably almost every atheist in the country would be relieved to know that no statements about atheism being a religion were uttered.
Some of the justices appeared to not accept Newdow's position that the act of simply listening to the loyalty oath is coercive under the precedent of Lee v. Weisman. I agree with Newdow on this point, except I consider even the so-called secular versions of the loyalty oath to be coercive political speech and contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
What struck me most during the arguments took place during the last five minutes, which were allotted to Terence Cassidy, attorney for Elk Grove Unified School District. One of the justices asked Cassidy whether the phrase "under God" was religious; Cassidy answered that it was not religious, but instead a political statement. That should offend the devout because the Petitioner is conceding that the phrase is just another act of ceremonial deism.
I predict that standing will not kill this case because the issue of custody is so confusingly entangled with it. Most state high courts, including the Supreme Court of Alabama, typically will not get involved in domestic relations issues. And it would seem out of character for so-called conservative justices, like Rehnquist and Thomas, to interfere with long held common law of the father being the natural guardian of his children.
I will not predict an outcome on the substantive issue. Possibly with any ruling as to "under God" there will be unfinished business. Will religious brainwashing continue or do we revert to secular brainwashing?
Perhaps the case in the Third Circuit, which questions a pledge law based on it being political speech, will rise to the U. S. Supreme Court and be the logical end of the loyalty oath.
Regardless of the outcome, Newdow is to be commended for his enormous effort and success in advancing his case to the highest court.
On another note, I alluded to the Third Circuit case in another post. This one deals with forced political recitations. I personally feel that this might have a better chance at success than the attempt at removing "Under God" does. Basically, there are too many people in the U.S. who are willing to accept ceremonial deism, but they may not like the idea of political agendas affecting their children (especially with the current state of politics, the rise in popularity of libertarianist philosophy and the encroachments of the current administration)
