Since
I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two
words have been added to the Pledge Of Allegiance: "Under
God"
Wouldn't
it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be
eliminated from schools, too?" --Red
Skelton http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/allegiance_20001220.html
Three
judges voted 2-1 and the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals regarding the Pledge of Allegiance has sparked a firestorm of
rhetoric and a hasty judicial do over.
A
great deal has been written already by columnists, pundits, and tap
dancing politicians of all political persuasions and I tried to resist the
temptation to write about it.
I failed.
This
issue is (according to political insiders) “radioactive”.
Democrats
want it to just go away…FAST.
Republicans see it as a political target of opportunity to be
exploited.
The longer this scab can be picked at, the more tender and raw the
fester will become, and the better politically for republicans.
The
9th Circuit is the most radical (and most often overturned)
court in the country.
That is a fact recognized by both political parties. It is
dominated by Clinton appointees http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/6/26/184746.
I have had lawyers tell me they consider being ruled against by the
9th Circuit is a benefit since statistically it improves their
opportunity to win on appeal.
Dr.
Michael Newdow, a Sacramento, California, physician with a law degree who
represented himself, said he brought the lawsuit that led to the ruling
"because I am an atheist and this offends me."
Guess what?
This ruling apparently offends the majority of the country.
It
is fascinating that the very constitutional principles which allow Newdow
to embrace and articulate an offensive minority view is the tool he uses
to offend the majority.
Tom
Daschle (proving that even a broken clock is right twice a day) called the
ruling “nuts.”
Harvard law professor (and one time possible Supreme Court
prospect) Laurence Tribe predicted that the Supreme Court would reverse
the decision unless the Ninth Circuit reverses itself. "I would bet
an awful lot on that," he said.
Believe
me the last thing the democrats want (especially in an important
congressional election year) is to have the Supreme Court slap liberal
groupthink.
The
9th U.S. Circuit brain flatulence ruled that Congress violated the
Constitution's "establishment clause" by adding the words
"under God" to the simple 29-word declaration in 1954.
The
establishment clause, a part of the First Amendment, bars the government
from setting up an official religion or taking steps in that direction.
However,
the KEY point the liberal left seems content in ignoring is that the
intent was (and is) to prevent the establishment of a government religion.
The intent was and is to prevent the government from controlling
religion…NOT to prevent religion from influencing government.
No doubt Newdow would want all currency recalled and “In God We
Trust” be deleted.
I
was recently asked if Judge Alfred Goodwin of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals was “pressured” to amend his original decision.
[Pregnant pause…sly half grin…deep sigh…]
Well, no…not really…kinda/sorta…what exactly do you mean by
“pressured”?
No
judge (and no political supporter of any judge) is foolish enough to
acknowledge influencing (or being influenced in) a decision.
However, circuit court appointments are very hard to get.
It takes a LOT of politics and years of lobbying effort.
These judges don’t get a call one day, “Hey there is going to
be an opening on the 9th Circuit.
Are you interested?”
Not EVEN!
Circuit Court Judges work hard positioning themselves for an
appointment and the political coinage is significant.
The
conventional wisdom from political insiders is that Goodwin’s phone was
(in all probability)
ringing off the hook from one time political backers who must have
been really annoyed, torqued, and p.o.-ed over his ruling and no doubt let
him know.
This
decision is the personification of the Metcalf bromide “there are
consequences to the things you do and don’t do…”.
The
democrats want this to go away…the sooner the better.
The GOP wants the issue to linger…the longer the better.
And
there are the inevitable unintended consequences.
*
The issue helps President Bush because it keeps Daschle et all off his
back
*
The Democrats are forced into a defensive posture scrambling for plausible
deniability.
*
At a time when everyone is anticipating the next terrorist attack on
America it is political suicide to articulate any message (whether it be
reasoned, scholarly, or visceral) that can be perceived as
"unpatriotic".
*
One consultant even expressed the concern that if this issue doesn't go
away it could potentially impact on the November Senate races.
Before
the stay was announced, Americans across the country sounded off on talk
radio, in coffee shops, bar, classrooms, and military bases.
The consensus opinion seems to be that the ruling is
"ridiculous"
and "just nuts".
