Mike Irwin
Member
From Reuters.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. appeals court that infuriated Americans by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional refused to reconsider on Friday, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether two words -- "under God" -- breach the wall separating church and state.
The decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stand by its stunning ruling prompted a quick reaction from the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites), who said the Justice Department (news - web sites) would "spare no effort" to defend the Pledge -- presumably by an appeal to the nation's highest court.
The Justice Department had joined the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress, State of California and others in asking the 9th circuit to reconsider its June 26, 2002 ruling that schoolchildren could no longer recite the Pledge because of the phrase "one nation under God."
A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit, ruling 2-1 in a lawsuit by a California atheist who sued on behalf of his young daughter, found that the phrase violated the separation of church and state mandated by the U.S. Constitution because it appeared to endorse religion.
The ruling touched off a furor across the country, where the famously liberal 9th Circuit was accused of taking a hammer to one of the pillars of U.S. civic society and bowing to political correctness run amok. President Bush (news - web sites) called the decision "ridiculous," while the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 for a resolution expressing support for the Pledge.
'PUBLIC OUTCRY' WON'T SWAY COURT
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.
"We may not -- we must not -- allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Reinhardt wrote.
"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."
But Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain disagreed, saying in a blistering written dissent that he wanted a full hearing not because the public was upset but because the ruling was "wrong -- very wrong" in its conclusion that reciting the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
"If reciting the Pledge is truly a 'religious act' in violation of the Establishment Clause then so is a recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem," he wrote, in reference to the fact that all of the above refer to God.
"Such an assertion would make hypocrites out of the Founders and would have the effect of driving any and all references to our religious heritage out of our schools and eventually out of our public life," O'Scannlain wrote.
A 'GRAVE ERROR'
He concluded: "We have made a grave error in failing to take (the case) and we have failed to correct that error ourselves. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to correct the error for us."
Ashcroft echoed those sentiments in his statement.
"For centuries our nation has referenced God as we have expressed our patriotism and national identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national anthem, on our coins and in the Gettysburg Address," he said. "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session by saying, 'God Save this honorable court.'
He added: "The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."
The original ruling from the 9th Circuit stemmed from a lawsuit by Michael Newdow, an atheist who conceded that his 8-year-old daughter was not required to recite the Pledge at her elementary school in Elk Grove, California, but said she was nevertheless hurt by having to "watch and listen."
In August the girl's mother, who has sole custody of her, asked that her daughter be removed from the legal proceedings on the grounds that the elementary school student did not consider herself an atheist and voluntarily recited the pledge. The court refused.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. appeals court that infuriated Americans by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional refused to reconsider on Friday, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether two words -- "under God" -- breach the wall separating church and state.
The decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stand by its stunning ruling prompted a quick reaction from the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites), who said the Justice Department (news - web sites) would "spare no effort" to defend the Pledge -- presumably by an appeal to the nation's highest court.
The Justice Department had joined the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress, State of California and others in asking the 9th circuit to reconsider its June 26, 2002 ruling that schoolchildren could no longer recite the Pledge because of the phrase "one nation under God."
A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit, ruling 2-1 in a lawsuit by a California atheist who sued on behalf of his young daughter, found that the phrase violated the separation of church and state mandated by the U.S. Constitution because it appeared to endorse religion.
The ruling touched off a furor across the country, where the famously liberal 9th Circuit was accused of taking a hammer to one of the pillars of U.S. civic society and bowing to political correctness run amok. President Bush (news - web sites) called the decision "ridiculous," while the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 for a resolution expressing support for the Pledge.
'PUBLIC OUTCRY' WON'T SWAY COURT
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.
"We may not -- we must not -- allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Reinhardt wrote.
"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."
But Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain disagreed, saying in a blistering written dissent that he wanted a full hearing not because the public was upset but because the ruling was "wrong -- very wrong" in its conclusion that reciting the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
"If reciting the Pledge is truly a 'religious act' in violation of the Establishment Clause then so is a recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem," he wrote, in reference to the fact that all of the above refer to God.
"Such an assertion would make hypocrites out of the Founders and would have the effect of driving any and all references to our religious heritage out of our schools and eventually out of our public life," O'Scannlain wrote.
A 'GRAVE ERROR'
He concluded: "We have made a grave error in failing to take (the case) and we have failed to correct that error ourselves. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to correct the error for us."
Ashcroft echoed those sentiments in his statement.
"For centuries our nation has referenced God as we have expressed our patriotism and national identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national anthem, on our coins and in the Gettysburg Address," he said. "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session by saying, 'God Save this honorable court.'
He added: "The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."
The original ruling from the 9th Circuit stemmed from a lawsuit by Michael Newdow, an atheist who conceded that his 8-year-old daughter was not required to recite the Pledge at her elementary school in Elk Grove, California, but said she was nevertheless hurt by having to "watch and listen."
In August the girl's mother, who has sole custody of her, asked that her daughter be removed from the legal proceedings on the grounds that the elementary school student did not consider herself an atheist and voluntarily recited the pledge. The court refused.
